Whitehouse v. American Surety Co.
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from PoVk District Oourt. — Hon. O. P. Hodmes, Judge. Action at law on a bond on wbicb defendant was surety. Defendant, in answer, pleaded that it was released because plaintiff failed to preserve a lien or claim held by Mm against a certain fund due from the city of Des Moines to the principal on the bond. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. —
1Opinion of the Court
Deemer, J. —
One King entered into contracts with the city of Des Moines for the grading of certain streets and alleys therein, and gave a bond, with the defendant aa surety, whereby he undertook to pay all just claims foi labor performed in complying with his contracts. Plaintiff is the assignee of the claims for labor, and as such brought action on the aforesaid bond. King brought suit on his contracts against the city, and in his action recovered judgment for $2,187. His attorneys were allowed $552 of this fund as a paramount lien; and something like $225 in labor claims, which defendant…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Robert Y. Brent, Surviving of Robert Brent, Use of the United States v. The President and Directors of the Bank of WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1836
- Howe Machine Company v. . FarringtonNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Baker & Co. v. BryanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1884
- Schroeppell v. . ShawNew York Court of Appeals · 1850
- Chambers v. CochranSupreme Court of Iowa · 1864
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Getchell & Martin Lumber & Manufacturing Co. v. Peterson & SampsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1904
- Hipwell v. the National Surety Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1905
- Empire State Surety Co. v. City of Des MoinesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1911
- Hay v. HassettSupreme Court of Iowa · 1916
- Haakinson & Beaty Co. v. McPhersonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1918
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.