School District No. 45 v. Hallock
Oregon Supreme Court
From Multnomah: Henry E. McGinn, Judge. Department 2. Statement by Mr. Justice Bean. This is an action brought by School District No. 45 for the use and benefit of the Peerless Pacific Company, a corporation, in pursuance of Section 6266, L. O. L., as amended by Chapter 27, Laws of Oregon for 1913, page 59. After alleging the corporate existence of the school district named, the Peerless Pacific Company, Hallock Building Company and Illinois Surety Company, the gist of the…
Read the full summary
From Multnomah: Henry E. McGinn, Judge. Department 2. Statement by Mr. Justice Bean. This is an action brought by School District No. 45 for the use and benefit of the Peerless Pacific Company, a corporation, in pursuance of Section 6266, L. O. L., as amended by Chapter 27, Laws of Oregon for 1913, page 59. After alleging the corporate existence of the school district named, the Peerless Pacific Company, Hallock Building Company and Illinois Surety Company, the gist of the plaintiff’s allegations and the facts as shown by the record are to the following effect: On September 15, 1914,…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Bean
1. It is urged by the learned counsel for defendant Surety Company that the assignment by Hallock of the contract for the building to a third party with the knowledge and consent of the obligees and without the consent of the surety released the latter: Citing Stearns on Suretyship (2 ed.), § 78, and several other authorities. Defendant raised the question presented by a demurrer to the complaint, by timely objections to the introduction of any evidence and by motion for *691a nonsuit. The proposition of law urged as above may be conceded, but the record does not show that the school district had…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- United States Ex Rel. Hill v. American Surety Co. of NYSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- Equitable Surety Co. v. United States Ex Rel. McMillanSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Mankin v. United States Ex Rel. Ludowici-Celadon Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Kaufmann v. CooperNebraska Supreme Court · 1896
- French v. PowellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Wadsworth v. Southern Surety Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1930
- Multnomah County v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1918
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Burton Lumber Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1920
- Utah Const. Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1926
- Electric Co. v. . Deposit Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.