Legal Opinion
Maxson Corp. v. Gary King Construction Co.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided March 12, 1985No. C8-84-1633Published
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
CRIPPEN, Judge.
Respondent Maxson seeks to recover on a surety bond issued by appellant Indemnity Insurance Company. The trial court, interpreting the meaning of “acceptance” in Minn.Stat. § 574.31 (1982), found that respondent Maxson was entitled to summary judgment. We affirm.
FACTS
On March 23, 1982, Anoka County and Gary King Construction Company (“King”) entered into a contract. King agreed to furnish labor and materials for construction of a bridge. Incorporated within that contract was the Minnesota Department of Transportation “Standard Specifications for Highway Construction”,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Ceco Steel Products Corp. v. TapagerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1940
- Wheeler Lumber Bridge & Supply Co. v. Seaboard Surety Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1944
- Alexander Construction Co. v. C & H Contracting, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
- Spetz & Berg, Inc. v. Luckie Const. Co., Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
- Elk River Concrete Products Co. v. American Cas. Co. of ReadingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1962