Ceco Steel Products Corp. v. Tapager
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
Julius J. Olson, Justice.
Plaintiffs brought separate actions against defendant construction company and its surety upon bonds furnished by the contractor, pursuant to statutory direction requiring such, to protect laborers and materialmen who furnish labor or materials “for the doing of any public work.” 3 Mason Minn. St. 1940 Supp. § 9700. The labor and materials here involved were furnished and supplied in the construction of two school buildings at Austin. In each action plaintiff alleged that the surety had waived compliance with our statute requiring claims so arising to be filed with…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- People v. . Metropolitan Surety Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1914
- Grant v. BerrisfordSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1904
- Schisel v. MarvillSupreme Court of Iowa · 1924
- Fay v. Bankers Surety Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Wilcox Lumber Co. v. School District No. 268Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- A. J. Chromy Construction Co. v. Commercial Mechanical Services, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- American Druggists Insurance v. Thompson Lumber Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
- Nelson Roofing & Contracting, Inc. v. C. W. Moore Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
- Mineral Resources, Inc. v. Mahnomen Construction Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1971
- Elk River Concrete Products Co. v. American Casualty Co. of ReadingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1964
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.