Legal Opinion

Maryland Casualty Co. v. Philbrick & Nicholson, Inc.

Washington Supreme Court

Decided April 2, 1928No. 21048. Department TwoPublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFullerton, J.

In May, 1926, the defendant, Phil-brick & Nicholson, Inc., a corporation, entered into a contract with the state highway commission of the state of Washington for the completion of a part of state road No. 9, lying and being between Agnew and Port Angeles, in Clallam county. The contract, is not in the record, and we are not advised as to its precise terms. Enough does appear, however, to show that it was in form that usual in such cases; the contractor agreed .to furnish the necessary labor and material, and grade and hard-surface the road in accordance with plans and specifications adopted…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Puget Sound State Bank v. GallucciWashington Supreme Court · 1914
  2. Northwestern National Bank v. Guardian Casualty & Guaranty Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1916
  3. Dexter Horton & Co. v. SparkmanWashington Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Gilmore v. WestermanWashington Supreme Court · 1896
  5. American Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. National Surety Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1919

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. National State Bank of Newark v. Terminal Const. Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1963
  2. First National Bank of Chisholm v. O'NeilSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1929
  3. Rachow v. Philbrick & NicholsonWashington Supreme Court · 1928
  4. Better Financial Solutions, Inc. v. Transtech Electric, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2002
  5. Better Financial Solutions, Inc. v. Transtech Electric, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2002

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