Bromley v. McHugh
Washington Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtMackintosh, J.
-These are the facts in this ease: The respondent, desiring to have built for him a building, had his architect, one Blair, prepare plans and specifications to be submitted to contractors for their bids. In the specifications the bidders were required to put up a certified check for five per cent of the *362amount of their bids. In the specifications there was no reservation to the owner of the right to reject any and all bids; they did contain, however, the provision that the “successful contractor” should be required to furnish surety bonds, and that the “successful bidder” would be required to…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Carroll v. Centralia Water Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1893
- Shaw v. LobeWashington Supreme Court · 1910
- Steeples v. Panel & Folding Box Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1903
- Schanen-Blair Co. v. Sisters of Charity of the House of ProvidenceWashington Supreme Court · 1914
- Kellogg v. CookWashington Supreme Court · 1898
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- O. C. Kinney, Inc. v. Paul Hardeman, Inc.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1963
- Minnesota Ltd., Inc. v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COM'N OF HIBBINGSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1973
- Holliday v. HigbeeCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1949
- Eames v. JamesLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1984
- North Cent. Util. v. Walker Community WaterLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1987
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.