Legal Opinion

Maryland Casualty Co. v. Cunningham

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided March 11, 1937No. 8 Div. 754PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GARDNER, Justice.

Plaintiff contracted with one Mullins for construction of a dwelling house, and for his better protection required a surety bond indemnifying him against damages arising from a breach of the construction contract, which bond this defendant executed, said Mullins signing as principal thereon. The bond refers to the contract (executed contemporaneously therewith), and makes it a part thereof. The house was, under the contract, to be completed by December 1, 1935, but on that date was only partially completed. The work is now abandoned, and the contractor’s present residence is…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Smith v. . MollesonNew York Court of Appeals · 1896
  2. First National Bank v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1906
  3. White's Adm'r v. Life Ass'n of AmericaSupreme Court of Alabama · 1879
  4. Alabama Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Alabama Fuel & Iron Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1914
  5. Hill v. Ocean Accident Guarantee CorporationSupreme Court of Alabama · 1935

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Hightower and Co., Inc. v. US Fidelity and Guaranty Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1988
  2. Hanks v. HanksSupreme Court of Alabama · 1967
  3. NAT. AMERICAN INS. CO. v. Boh Bros. Const. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1997
  4. U S Specialty Insurance Company v. Trawick Contractors IncDistrict Court, N.D. Alabama · 2023

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

Powered by the Exa API