Rosman v. Bankers Surety Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in tbe district court for Eed Lake county to recover $175.-33. Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion. Tbe case was tried before Grindeland, J., wbo made findings and ordered judgment in favor ■of pláintiff for tbe amount demanded. From tbe order denying its motion for amended findings or for a new trial, defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, C. J.
The facts, briefly stated, are as follows: Some time in May, 1910, "the board of county commissioners of Eed Lake county duly ordered the construction of a certain drainage ditch, designated as county ditch No. 43. A contract for the construction of a part of the ditch was awarded to one Sherwood. To secure the performance of the •contract Sherwood, with defendant in this action as surety, executed to the county a bond conditioned in all respects as required by the drainage statutes. Sherwood bad a similar contract for the construction of a part of county ditch No. 38, and a similar bond was…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Fay v. Bankers Surety Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
3Cited by10 opinions
- Johnson v. StarrettSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Hicks v. RandichWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1928
- Miller v. American Bonding Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
- Smith v. OostingMichigan Supreme Court · 1925
- Wold v. Bankers Surety Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.