Legal Opinion

Williams v. Tingey

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 17, 1915No. Civ. No. 1625PublishedCited by 7 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.

This is an action to recover from the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company as surety upon the bond of C. H. Tingey given as contractor for the doing of certain street work in the city of San Diego. Judgment went for plaintiff, from which, adopting the alternative method, the defendant United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company appeals.

The bond was given by C. H. Tingey, to whom the contract for doing the work was let by the city, and, after reciting that the obligors, namely: Tingey as principal and" the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company as surety, were bound unto all persons…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. French v. PowellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  2. People's Lumber Co. v. GillardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Pneucrete Corp. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1935
  2. Hub Hardware Co. v. Aetna Accident & Liab. Co.California Supreme Court · 1918
  3. Los Angeles S. Co. v. National S. Co.California Supreme Court · 1918
  4. Mullia v. Ye Planry Building Co.California Court of Appeal · 1916
  5. Panama Commercial Co. v. TingeyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1915

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API