Legal Opinion

Mack v. Hugger Bros. Const. Co.

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided December 6, 1925PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Cook

The complainant is a resident of Illinois, engaged in making and applying a compound called “Rezilite,” used in surfacing floors. The defendant Hugger Bros. Construction Company is a building contractor whose corpo rate domicile is Alabama. The defendant erected the Scottish Rite Temple in Nashville, and contracted with complainant to lay a Rezilite floor in that building, for which a balance of $6,350 is payable.

Under another contract, complainant laid a Rezilite floor in a building constructed by the defendant com--pany at Greeneville, Ala., and a balance of $1,793 is payable to complainant…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Moore v. TateTennessee Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Blair v. A. Johnson & SonsTennessee Supreme Court · 1903
  3. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. BarefootTexas Supreme Court · 1903
  4. Irvine v. DeanTennessee Supreme Court · 1894
  5. McLean v. HoustonTennessee Supreme Court · 1870

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Riverside Park Realty Co. v. Federal Deposit InsuranceDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 1978
  2. Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp. v. BurdetteDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1988
  3. Kelly v. Louisiana Oil Refining Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1934
  4. MacK v. Hugger Bros. ConstructionCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1929
  5. Davis Erection Co., Inc. v. JorgensenNebraska Supreme Court · 1995

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API