Legal Opinion
Royal Indemnity Co. v. Day & Maddock Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided February 2, 1926No. 19104PublishedCited by 30 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRobinson, J.
Section 2365-1, General Code, provides :
“That when public buildings * * * are about to be constructed * * * at the expense of the * * * city * * * or school district thereof, it shall be the duty of the board * * * contracting on behalf of the * * * school district, to require the usual bond as provided for in statute with good and sufficient sureties, with an additional obligation for the payment by the contractor, and by all subcontractors, for all labor performed or materials furnished in the construction, erection, alteration or repair of such building.”
Section 2365-2, General Code,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Brogan v. National Surety Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1918
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. United States Ex Rel. BartlettSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- United States Rubber Co. of California v. American Bonding Co. of BaltimoreWashington Supreme Court · 1915
- Beals v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of MarylandAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1902
- Bay State Dredging & Contracting Co. v. W. H. Ellis & Son Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1920
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Gary Hay Grain Co., Inc. v. CarlsonMontana Supreme Court · 1927
- Steele & Lebby v. Flynn-Sullivan Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1932
- Century Indemnity Co. v. Shunk Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1934
- Hochevar v. Maryland Casualty Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1940
- American Guaranty Co. v. Cincinnati Iron & Steel Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1927
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.