Legal Opinion

Barritt S. King & Co. v. Murphy

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided November 18, 1896No. 6823PublishedCited by 15 opinions

Error from the district court of Gage county. Tried below before Bush, J.

1Opinion of the CourtNorval, J.

M. T. Murphy, on the 29th day of March, 1890, entered into a written contract with Gage connty for the construction of a court house, according to the plans and specifications furnished by Gum & Curtis, architects. By the terms of the contract Murphy was to furnish all the materials and perform all the labor for the erection of the building. For the faithful performance of the contract he gave a-bond to the county in the sum of $20,000, signed by himself as principal; and the names of Gottlieb Storz, Henry P. Drexel, and Albert Foil were attached thereto as sureties. The bond, among other…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Lyman v. City of LincolnNebraska Supreme Court · 1894
  2. Doll v. CrumeNebraska Supreme Court · 1894
  3. Kaufmann v. CooperNebraska Supreme Court · 1896
  4. Sample v. HaleNebraska Supreme Court · 1892
  5. Korsmeyer Plumbing & Heating Co. v. McClayNebraska Supreme Court · 1895

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Getchell & Martin Lumber & Manufacturing Co. v. Peterson & SampsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1904
  2. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. W. & J. Knox Net & Twine Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1926
  3. American Surety Co. v. School District No. 64Nebraska Supreme Court · 1928
  4. Algonite Stone Manufacturing Co. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1917
  5. Aetna Indemnity Co. v. Indianapolis Mortar & Fuel Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1912

10 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