Legal Opinion

Bromley v. McHugh

Washington Supreme Court

Decided November 24, 1922No. 17160PublishedCited by 7 opinions

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

  1. Carroll v. Centralia Water Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Shaw v. LobeWashington Supreme Court · 1910
  3. Steeples v. Panel & Folding Box Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1903
  4. Schanen-Blair Co. v. Sisters of Charity of the House of ProvidenceWashington Supreme Court · 1914
  5. Kellogg v. CookWashington Supreme Court · 1898

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. O. C. Kinney, Inc. v. Paul Hardeman, Inc.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1963
  2. Minnesota Ltd., Inc. v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COM'N OF HIBBINGSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1973
  3. Holliday v. HigbeeCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1949
  4. Eames v. JamesLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1984
  5. North Cent. Util. v. Walker Community WaterLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1987

2 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