Romer v. Conter
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant, John B. Conter, from an order of the District Court of Ramsey County, Chas. D. Kerr, J., made J une 18,1892, denying his motion for a new trial.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant, John B. Conter, from an order of the District Court of Ramsey County, Chas. D. Kerr, J., made J une 18,1892, denying his motion for a new trial. On June 6, 1889, Frank W. Farrar and Seth K. Howes owned eight lots in Summit Terrace, St. Paul, and made a contract with plaintiff, Frederick J. Bomer, to build thereon for them a block of eight houses for $48,686; and he on June 11, 1889, gave them a bond for the use of any and all persons who might do work or furnish materials, conditioned to pay all just claims for such work and materials. The defendants Ferodowill & Siclcel…
1Opinion of the CourtDickinson, J.
The cause of action set forth in the complaint is in brief as follows:
In June, 1889, the plaintiff contracted with the owners of certain lands to erect a block of buildings- thereon, obligating himself by a bond with sureties for the use of all persons who might furnish materials or labor for the construction, with the condition that their claims should be paid. The defendants Ferodowdll & Sickel were subcontractors under the plaintiff, and they obligated themselves to him by bond, with the appellant, Conter, as their surety, as is alleged, conditioned that they should pay for all labor and…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Khaim Khaimov v. David Crist, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2002
- United Surety Co. v. SummersCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1909
- Peterson v. City of Red WingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
- Hahn v. BettingenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
- Hughes v. DopsonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1939
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.