Smith v. McKnight
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
BISHOP, J., pro tem.
So far as pertinent to our problem, the provisions of section 19 of the Improvement Act of 1911 are the following (effective in the year 1925) : “Every contractor ... to whom is awarded any contract for street work under this act, shall . . . file ... a good and sufficient bond ... to inure to the benefit of any and all persons . . . who perform labor on, or furnish materials to be used in said work of improvement. . . . Any laborer, materialman . . . whose claim has not been paid . . . may, at any time prior to thirty days after the recording of the assessment ■ for said…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hub Hardware Co. v. Aetna Accident & Liab. Co.California Supreme Court · 1918
- Miles v. BaleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Republic Iron and Steel Co. v. PatilloCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
- Evans v. ShackelfordCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
- California Portland Cement Co. v. BooneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- American Surety Co. v. SampsellCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1945