Legal Opinion
Stulz-Sickles Co. v. Fredburn Constr. Corp.
New Jersey Court of Chancery
Decided November 17, 1933PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
In March of 1932 the defendant, a New York corporation, entered into a contract with the New Jersey state highway commission for the performance of certain work, and in accordance with the statute (P.L. 1918 ch. 75 § 203; 1 Cum. Supp. Comp. Stat. p.1765), furnished a bond, with the National Surety Company as surety, in the sum of $881,054, conditioned for the faithful performance of the contract and for the payment of subcontractors, laborers and materialmen for labor performed and materials furnished in completing the contract. The contractor fully completed the work and during its progress…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Prairie State Bank v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Walker v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Benedict v. RatnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Christmas v. RussellSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Grover v. Bd. of Ed., Franklin Twp.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1928
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Morley Construction Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Kelleam v. Maryland Casualty Co. of BaltimoreCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1940
- Carrier Corp. v. J. E. Schecter Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1965
- Gardner v. BeanUtah Supreme Court · 1984
- First Camden Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Ætna Casualty & Surety Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1942
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.