United States ex rel. Fidelity Nat. Bank v. Rundle
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the District of Washington. On July 1,' 1897, N. B. Bundle entered into a contract with the United States to erect certain buildings near Spokane in tbe state of Washington, and in pursuance of an act of congress approved August 13, 1894, executed and delivered a bond to the United States in the penal sum of $10,000, conditioned that the said N. B. Bundle should well and truly and In all respects…
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the District of Washington. On July 1,' 1897, N. B. Bundle entered into a contract with the United States to erect certain buildings near Spokane in tbe state of Washington, and in pursuance of an act of congress approved August 13, 1894, executed and delivered a bond to the United States in the penal sum of $10,000, conditioned that the said N. B. Bundle should well and truly and In all respects duly and fully observe and perform the contract, and “promptly make full payments to^ all persons supplying him labor or…
1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge
Upon the writ of error it is now contended that the trial court erroneously charged the jury concerning the effect of the extension *228of time which was given to N. B. Bundle by the Fidelity National Bank. It is urged that the agreement which was made between Bundle and the bank to extend the time of payment from estimate to estimate as made upon the work was an extension for no definite period, and that therefore it did not operate to release the sureties, and that the agreement to extend was without consideration, and waá not binding upon the bank. The transaction.between Bundle and the bank…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Moses v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Dudley v. Toledo, Ann Arbor & North Michigan Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1887
- Union Guaranty & Trust Co. v. RobinsonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1897
- Martin v. Michigan & Ohio RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
3Cited by58 opinions
- Hess & Skinner Engineering Co. v. TurneyTexas Supreme Court · 1919
- United States of America for the Use and Benefit of Robert Wulff and Caitlyn Wulff, Husband and Wife v. Cma, Inc. And Reliance Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
- Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. State ex rel. Leavenworth State BankIndiana Court of Appeals · 1915
- Drill South, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. International Fidelity Ins. Co., Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee. Drill South, Inc., Plaintiff-Counter v. International Fidelity Ins. Co., Defendant-Counter Claimant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2000
- First Mobile Home Corporation v. LittleMississippi Supreme Court · 1974
53 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.