Tompkins v. Forrestal
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiffs, W. M. Tompkins and George F. Merrill, from an order of the District Court of St. Louis County, O. P. Stearns, J., made July 16, 1892, denying their motion for a new trial. On May 12, 1890, William Forrestal and James Forrestal, two of the defendants, entered into a contract with the City of Duluth to pave Bench Street from Eighth Avenue East to Montata Avenue.
Read the full summary
Appeal by plaintiffs, W. M. Tompkins and George F. Merrill, from an order of the District Court of St. Louis County, O. P. Stearns, J., made July 16, 1892, denying their motion for a new trial. On May 12, 1890, William Forrestal and James Forrestal, two of the defendants, entered into a contract with the City of Duluth to pave Bench Street from Eighth Avenue East to Montata Avenue. The other defendants, Henry H. Bell and John H. La Vague, became sureties on their bond for $17,000 to the city, dated that day, and conditioned that if the Forrestals should faithfully perform the contract, and…
1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.
The bond to the city of Duluth on which plaintiffs brought this action in their own names bore date May 20, 1890, and was therefore executed under the provisions of the statute then in force. (Sp. Laws 1887, ch. 2, subch. 5, § 5.) The plaintiffs contend that their action was properly brought, because brought in accordance with the provisions of an amendment to said section 5, found in Sp. Laws 1891, ch. 55, § 15, and the first question for determination is whether that part of the amendatory statute which confers upon one who has performed labor or has furnished material upon a contract with…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Green v. BiddleSupreme Court of the United States · 1823
- William Crawford and David Files, in Error v. The Branch Bank of Alabama at MobileSupreme Court of the United States · 1849
- Giles v. GilesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1876
- State v. WaholzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
- State Bank v. HeneySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Chapman v. DavisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1951
- Waddill v. . MastenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
- Stein v. HansonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- Oppegaard v. Board of County CommissionersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
- Waterous Engine Works Co. v. Village of ClintonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.