Hill County v. Shaw & Borden Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Montana; George M. Bourquin, Judge. Action by the Shaw & Borden Company against Hill County. There-was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
Read the full summary
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Montana; George M. Bourquin, Judge. Action by the Shaw & Borden Company against Hill County. There-was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. This is an action for conversion of certain books and other property, which Hill county procured of Shaw & Borden Company, a corporation, defendant in error, for use by the county for keeping its records and carrying on the public business of the county. The books and property were procured from Shaw & Borden Company under a subcontract with one B. B. Weldy, who was…
1Opinion of the CourtWolverton, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above). [ 1 ] .The statutory provision of which it is alleged the contract of the defendant in error is in violation is as follows (we quote from appellant’s brief, as its correctness is not questioned):
“It is hereby made the duty of the county commissioners of the several counties of the state of Montana to contract with some newspaper of general circulation, published within the county, and having been published continuously in such county at least six months immediately preceding the awarding of such contract to do and perform all the printing for which said…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Central Transportation Co. v. Pullman's Palace Car Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Central Transportation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Parkersburg v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Marsh v. Fulton CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Chapman v. County of DouglasSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Fanchier v. GammillMississippi Supreme Court · 1927
- Smith Engineering Co. v. RiceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1938
- Town of Holbrook v. GirandArizona Supreme Court · 1938
- County of Greenlee v. WebsterArizona Supreme Court · 1926
- Ludwig Hommel & Co. v. Incorporated Village of WoodsfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1927
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.