Legal Opinion

Kirkpatrick v. Douglas

Montana Supreme Court

Decided March 2, 1937No. 7,639PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Angstman

The complaint in this action contains two causes of action, each relating to a separate highway project. Under the first cause of action it was shown that on October 11, 1932, defendant A. R. Douglas was awarded and entered into a contract with the state of Montana through the State Highway Commission for the construction of a designated highway. Defendant surety company became surety on the bond furnished under section 5668.41, Revised Codes. In May, 1933, defendant Douglas made a contract subletting the work to the plaintiffs, who agreed to assume all the duties and obligations of Douglas…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Cascade Lumber Co. v. Aetna Indemnity Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1910
  2. State Ex Rel. Matson v. O'HernMontana Supreme Court · 1937
  3. United States ex rel. Brown-Ketcham Iron Works v. RobinsonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1914
  4. Clifton, Applegate & Toole v. Big Lake Drain District No. 1Montana Supreme Court · 1928
  5. Denny-Renton Clay & Coal Co. v. National Surety Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1916

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. School District No. 1 Ex Rel. Lynch Co. v. Rushlight & Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1962
  2. H. Earl Clack Co. v. StauntonMontana Supreme Court · 1937
  3. State v. Walter LarsonMontana Supreme Court · 2015

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

Powered by the Exa API