Legal Opinion

New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. A Wirtz Transfer Co.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided November 7, 1935No. Nos 668, 669, 670, 671 & 672PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

*310OPINION

By MATTHEWS, J.

In view of our conclusion as to this latter contention, we deem it unnecessary to determine whether ' §2365-1, GC, applies to work done under contract with the Miami Conservancy District.

It is clear under the authorities that the contractor, Ward-Hayes Construction Company, hound itself to the Miami Conservancy District not merely to furnish the necessary labor and material, but also to pay for them. In Royal Indemnity Co. v Northern Ohio Granite & Stone Co., 100 Oh St, 373, the provision of the contract was that the contractor would “at his own risk, cost and expense do…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Fidelity Deposit Co. of Baltimore, Md. v. RainerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Miami Conservancy Dist. v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1941

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API