Legal Opinion

Ryan v. Shannahan

California Supreme Court

Decided March 12, 1930No. Docket No. L.A. 12093PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PRESTON, J.—

This cause requires a construction by the court of the language of a surety bond, considered in con nection with the contract to which it relates. The facts are not disputed.

Defendant Shannahan, under a written contract dated January 23, 1925, agreed to do certain work for Blue Diamond Company, a corporation, in connection with the construction by it of a branch railroad line in Nevada. Said defendant covenanted to furnish “all necessary material, superintendence, labor, tools, plant, equipment and transportation for and to perform, lay, execute, finish and complete in the most…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Brogan v. National Surety Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1918
  2. Roberts v. Security Trust & Savings BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  3. Sather Banking Co. v. Arthur R. Briggs Co.California Supreme Court · 1903
  4. French v. PowellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  5. County of Glenn v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Cates Construction, Inc. v. Talbot PartnersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
  2. Bloom v. BenderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  3. United States Leasing Corp. v. duPontCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  4. Pacific States Electric Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1930
  5. Lembke Construction Co. v. JD Coggins CompanyNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1963

16 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