Bain v. Arthur
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Action by H. H. Bain against John Arthur and others. W. E. Hamilton.and others were called in warranty. Judgment for plaintiff. Exception by warrantors to no cause of action sustained, and the surety company appealed. From the judgment of the Court of Appeals, affirming both judgments, the surety company applies for certiorari or writ of review.
1Opinion of the CourtLand, J.
Plaintiff sued as materialman to recover $592 of the defendant John Arthur, as contractor for the erection of a public schoolhouse and the Deposit' Company of Maryland as surety on the contractor’s bond to secure the claims of laborers and materialmen.
The contractor made no defense. The surety company' for answer admitted the execution of the bond, but otherwise denied the allegations of the petition, and pleaded the prescription of 45 days, provided by section 4, Act No. 65, p. 79, of 1908, which commences to run from and after the completion of the work. The surety company also filed a call…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Georgia Casualty Co. v. Dixie Trust & Security Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1919
- Cook v. Ruston Oil Mills & Fertilizer Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1930
- Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. HardmanSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1913
- Bennett v. WeinbergerSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1926
- Bordelon v. Ludeau's Lumber YardLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1937
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.