Legal Opinion
City of Camden v. Ward
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Decided June 16, 1902PublishedCited by 4 opinions
On error to the Supreme Court.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Dixon, J.
On December 30th, 1898, the defendant Ward entered into a written contract with the city of Camden to pave Federal street, in that city, with asphalt pavement on concrete foundation, at designated prices, and to complete the work by November 1st, 1899. One clause of the contract is as follows:
“If for any reason the contractor fails to comply with the directions of the commissioner of streets as to commencing the work, or after commencing he shall stop or shall prosecute the work without due diligence, or with an insufficient force of men, in…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- In the Matter of John G. LeedsNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Gloucester City v. EschbachSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1891
3Cited by4 opinions
- Ellyson v. LordSupreme Court of Iowa · 1904
- City of Montpelier v. National Surety Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1923
- Public Service Electric & Gas Co. v. Technology for Energy, Corp. (In Re Technology for Energy, Corp.)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1991
- Borough of Totowa v. American Surety Co. of New YorkSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1963