Legal Opinion
Royal Indemnity Co. v. Young & Vann Supply Co.
Supreme Court of Alabama
Decided October 6, 1932No. 7 Div. 38PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBouldin, J.
The suit is on a contractor’s bond given to secure the performance of the obligations of a contract with the town of Montevallo for the construction of street improvements. General Acts of 1927, § 28, p. 356 et seq.; General Acts of 1927, p. 37.
The present appeals are taken by Royal Indemnity Company, surety on the bond, to review the judgments in favor of P. J. Kroell and Birmingham Slag Company, severally, both of whom were materialmen and interveners in the suit which was begun by Young & Yann Supply Company.
Many assignments of error and arguments thereon were addressed to the rulings of…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Daniels v. TearneySupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Woodward Iron Co. v. BradfordSupreme Court of Alabama · 1921
- Shepard v. BarronSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Booth Fisheries Co. v. Industrial Comm'n of Wis.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Musco v. . United Surety Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1909
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Fidelity Casualty Co. of New York v. JacksSupreme Court of Alabama · 1936
- American Casualty Company of Reading, Pa. v. DevineSupreme Court of Alabama · 1963
- Limestone County v. MontgomerySupreme Court of Alabama · 1933
- Universal Electric Const. Co. of Alabama v. RobbinsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1940
- Water Works, Gas & Sewer Board of the City of Oneonta, Inc. v. P. A. Buchanan Contracting Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1975
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.