Legal Opinion

Doheny v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

District Court, D. Montana

Decided August 29, 1940No. Nos. 69, 70PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PRAY, District Judge.

The above entitled causes, numbered 69 and 70, were heard together, as the facts are identical and the law applicable thereto the same. The pleadings are alike in both cases.

Judgments were obtained in both causes against the contractors in question, Cover-dale and Johnson, co-partners, in the state court, and after affirmation thereof on appeal, executions were issued thereon and subsequently returned to the effect that no property could be found in either case; thereafter this suit was commenced against the above named defendant.

A surety bond was furnished the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Gary Hay Grain Co., Inc. v. CarlsonMontana Supreme Court · 1927
  2. Park Saddle Horse Co. v. Royal Indemnity Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Peterson v. Miller Rubber Co. of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1928
  4. Doheny v. CoverdaleMontana Supreme Court · 1937
  5. Dodd v. VucovichMontana Supreme Court · 1909

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Tin Cup County Water v. Garden City Plumbing & Heating, Inc.Montana Supreme Court · 2008
  2. Carl Weissman & Sons, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceMontana Supreme Court · 1968
  3. Lapke v. HuntMontana Supreme Court · 1968
  4. Western Life Insurance Company v. BowerDistrict Court, D. Montana · 1957
  5. Zurich American Insurance Company and Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland v. GoldsteenDistrict Court, D. Montana · 2023

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API