Legal Opinion
Gilfillan v. City of Bartlesville
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided May 11, 1915No. 3706PublishedCited by 13 opinions
Error from District Court, Washington County; B. H. Hudson, Judge. Action ’by. the' City of Bartlesville against R. S. Gilfillan and another, partners as R. S. Gilfillan & Son. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error.
1Opinion of the Court
THACKER, C.
Plaintiffs in error will be designated as defendants, and defendant in error as plaintiff, in accord with their respective titles in the trial court.
On December 12, 1908, defendants, as contractors, entered into a contract with plaintiff to pave one of its streets in accord with its own plans and specifications; and this contract contains, among other things, the following provision:
“The contractors further agree that they will maintain in good condition said paving, curbing, and guttering, and every part thereof, for the full period of five years from the date of the completion…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Norwood v. BakerSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Wight v. DavidsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
- City of Seattle v. KelleherSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Harrington v. City of TulsaSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1934
- City of Lawton v. AkersSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1958
- Application of Erick Hospital DistrictSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1968
- Bragdon v. City of MuskogeeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1928
- Public Service Co. of Oklahoma v. Northwest Rogers County Fire Protection DistrictSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1984
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.