Legal Opinion

Taylor v. Guinan

New York Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1910PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Motion to set aside verdict for the plaintiffs.

1Opinion of the CourtPutnam, J.

The plaintiffs had been supplying a dredge at the hire of $40 per day to one Michael Flannery, who was a contractor engaged in dredging out the Shrewsbury river. Flannery had given to the United ¡States a contractor’s bond, upon which the defendant was a surety. By the act of February 24, 1906, chapter 778 (32 Slat, at Large, p. 811), *263such sureties are made answerable for claims by any subcontractors. Plaintiffs’ work for Flannery began in the spring of 1906. About the first part of June, Flannery’s payments fell behind, so that another subcontractor who furnished the steam tug stopped work,…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Mannetti v. DoegeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Taylor v. GuinanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910
  2. Taylor v. GuinanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API