Legal Opinion

French v. Powell

California Supreme Court

Decided February 28, 1902No. L.A. No. 1014PublishedCited by 46 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion. Foley & Rowell, and Goodrich & McCutchen, for Appellants.

1Opinion of the Court

CHIPMAN, C.

Plaintiff’s complaint sets forth three causes of action upon a bond executed by defendant Powell, as principal, and defendant company, as surety, under the provisions of the act of March 27, 1897, (Stats. 1897, p. 201). It is alleged that Powell entered into an agreement with the city of Los Angeles on February 8, 1899, to construct a tunnel in Third Street, from Hill to Flower Street, and to furnish at his own cost all the labor and material necessary therefor, and that said work was never completed; that defendants entered into a written undertaking as provided for in the above…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Willamette Steam Mills Lumbering & Manufacturing Co. v. Los Angeles College Co.California Supreme Court · 1892
  2. Malone v. Big Flat Gravel Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1888
  3. Bates v. County of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Adams v. BurbankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  5. Wilson v. NugentCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899

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

3Cited by46 opinions

  1. Jensen v. NelsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1945
  2. National Surety Co. v. Bratnober Lumber Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1912
  3. Franzen v. Southern Surety Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1926
  4. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. California-Arizona Construction Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1920
  5. Chamberlain v. City of LewistonIdaho Supreme Court · 1912

41 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