Steffes v. Lemke
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Defendant Lemke appeals from the judgment in each of the above actions, which were tried together, without a jury, in the municipal court of St. Paul.
Read the full summary
Defendant Lemke appeals from the judgment in each of the above actions, which were tried together, without a jury, in the municipal court of St. Paul. One Bruecker, having made a contract with Gardner S. Moore to erect a building, made and filed a bond, executed by himself as principal, and by the defendants Lemke and Sauerwein as sureties, conditioned as required by Gen. St. 1878, c. 90, § 3. The plaintiffs brought these actions on the bond, against Bruecker and his sureties, to recover for labor performed for Bruecker in erecting the building. The summons was not served upon Bruecker, and…
1Opinion of the CourtGileillan, C. J.
These actions were brought against Bruecker, the contractor, as principal, and the other defendants as sureties, in a bond executed by them to Gardner S. Moore, as owner, conditioned that Bruecker would pay all just claims for work done and to be done, and all material furnished and to be furnished, pursuant to a contract between Moore, as owner, and Bruecker as contractor, for the construction of a certain building, and in the execution of the work therein provided for as they should become due, which bond was made and filed under Gen. St. 1878, c. 90, § 3, in order to prevent a lien…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Getchell & Martin Lumber & Manufacturing Co. v. Peterson & SampsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1904
- United States ex rel. Anniston Pipe & Foundry Co. v. National Surety Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1899
- Aetna Indemnity Co. v. Indianapolis Mortar & Fuel Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1912
- Griffith v. RundleWashington Supreme Court · 1900
- Federal Union Surety Co. v. Commonwealth ex rel. VandiverCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1910
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.