United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Iowa Telephone Co.
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Wapello District Court. — D. M. Anderson, Judge. Action at law to recover premiums alleged to be due the plaintiff as surety upon a certain bond given by the telephone company to the city of Ottumwa. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and the telephone company appeals. The material facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtWeaver, J.
1. Bonds: constraction: ambiguous connection of unambiguous tfonoi terms The facts in this' case are not in dispute. In the year 1903, the city of Ottumwa, by its mayor and council, adopted an ordinance designated in the record as Ordinance No. 633, regulating the use of its streets by telephone companies and requiring telephone wires to be laid underground. Among other things, it was therein provided that, before the laying sue^ wires should be begun, the company should make application to the council so to do, accompanied by plans and specifications of the'proposed improvement, and that,…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- United States v. HodsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1870
- O'BRIEN v. MillerSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Baker & Co. v. BryanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1884
- Hibbard v. McKindleyIllinois Supreme Court · 1862
- Walker v. ChapmanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1853
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Curtis v. MichaelsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1928
- Philip Carey Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1926
- Schisel v. MarvillSupreme Court of Iowa · 1924
- City of Charles City v. RasmussenSupreme Court of Iowa · 1929
- Burns v. Eno.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1932
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.