Burrell v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern Division of the Western District of Washington.
1Opinion of the Court
ROSS, Circuit Judge.
The case shows that the plaintiff in error, who was defendant in the court below, had a contract with the United States for the erection of certain-buildings at Ft. Casey, in the state of Washington. He gave the bond required by the act of Congress approved August 13, 1894, entitled “An act for the protection of persons furnishing materials and labor for the construction of public works,” on which bond the Ætna Indemnity Company was surety.
The act of August 13, 1894, c. 280, 28 Stat. 278 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 2523, 2524], is as follows:
“Be it enacted by the Senate and…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Burchell v. MarshSupreme Court of the United States · 1855
- State Ex Rel. Markley v. BaldwinSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Walden v. SkinnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- McNutt Ex Rel. Leggett, Smith, & Lawrence v. BlandSupreme Court of the United States · 1844
- Heckers v. FowlerSupreme Court of the United States · 1865
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- State v. Tri-State Telephone & Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
- Schoenfelder v. BeckmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1952
- In Re County Ditch No. 15, Chippewa CountySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1952
- Barnard-Curtiss Company and the Seaboard Surety Company, Surety v. United States of America, for the Use and Benefit of D. W. Falls Construction Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1958
- Carver v. Knutson Elevators, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1955
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.