Legal Opinion
Williamson v. Williams
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided April 4, 1933No. Docket No. 36, Calendar No. 36,920PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWiest, J.
A highway construction contract was let by the State highway commissioner to defendants Pickett & Goodwin Brothers; they sublet to Arthur Chaney, who sublet a part of his contract to Williams & Splitstone, copartners. Plaintiff and his assignors were laborers employed by Williams & Splitstone, and this suit was brought against Pickett & Groodwin Brothers, original contractors, and the surety on their bond, to recover for labor performed for Williams • & Splitstone. The principal contractors gave two bonds with defendant Michigan Surety Company surety; one called construction bond and the…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Trinity Portland Cement Co. v. Lion Bonding & Surety Co.Texas Commission of Appeals · 1921
- Chambers v. ClineWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1906
- Philip Carey Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1926
- Globe Indemnity Co. v. BarnesTexas Commission of Appeals · 1926
- Fogarty v. DavisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1924
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Jones v. HadfieldSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1936
- Peters v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1979
- Hub Electric Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1975
- Hub Electric Company, Inc. v. Gust Construction Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1978
- Hub Electric Co. v. Gust Construction Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1978
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.