Legal Opinion

Fitzgerald v. McClay

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided April 7, 1896No. 6224PublishedCited by 17 opinions

Error from the district court of Lancaster county. Tried below before Hall, J.

1Opinion of the CourtNormal, J.

Thomas Price and J. N. Shoemaker, on the 4th day of March, 1889, entered into a written contract with the state of Nebraska, through the board of public lands and buildings, whereby they agreed to furnish all the labor and materials necessary for the construction of a brick building for an engine house on the grounds at the hospital for the insane at Lincoln, at the stipulated sum of $11,000. One-half thereof was to be paid when the roof was on and the remainder when the building was fully completed. The contract contained this provision: “And it is further agreed *817that the first party [Price…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Lyman v. City of LincolnNebraska Supreme Court · 1894
  2. Doll v. CrumeNebraska Supreme Court · 1894
  3. Kaufmann v. CooperNebraska Supreme Court · 1896
  4. Sample v. HaleNebraska Supreme Court · 1892
  5. Korsmeyer Plumbing & Heating Co. v. McClayNebraska Supreme Court · 1895

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Knight & Jillson Co. v. CastleIndiana Supreme Court · 1909
  2. Gary Hay Grain Co., Inc. v. CarlsonMontana Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Williams v. MarklandIndiana Court of Appeals · 1896
  4. Builders Lumber & Supply Co. v. Chicago Bonding & Surety Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1918
  5. Fulghum & Union Indemnity Co. v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1926

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

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

Powered by the Exa API