Stoddard v. Hibbler
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne; Donovan, J. Assumpsit by Edgar Stoddard and another against William H. Hibbler, principal, and the Title Guaranty & Surety Company, surety, on a building contractor’s bond. There was a judgment for plaintiff on a verdict directed by the court, and defendant surety company brings error. Affirmed.
1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.
The defendant Hibbler entered into a contract with the plaintiffs, by the terms of which he promised and agreed, for and in consideration of the sum of $3,700, to furnish all labor and material necessary to build and complete, according to plans and specifications furnished by party of the first part, a two-family double house. Plaintiffs undertook, in consideration of the *336premises, to pay the consideration price in installments. Upon the execution of this contract the defendant Kibbler, as principal, and the defendant company, as surety, executed a bond in the sum of $2,000, reciting that…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- City of Sterling v. WolfIllinois Supreme Court · 1896
- Gato v. WarringtonSupreme Court of Florida · 1896
- Closson v. BillmanIndiana Supreme Court · 1904
- Mayes v. LaneCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1903
- Friend v. RalstonWashington Supreme Court · 1904
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Callan v. Empire State Surety Co.California Court of Appeal · 1912
- Empire State Surety Co. v. LindenmeierSupreme Court of Colorado · 1913
- Seaboard Surety Co. v. Standard Accident InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1938
- City of Alpena ex rel. Zess v. Title Guaranty & Surety Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1909
- Howard v. FisherSupreme Court of Colorado · 1929
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.