State ex rel. Konen Construction Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

In our previous opinion responding to plaintiff’s petition for rehearing we concluded that “it clearly was found that the intervening defendants were indebted to plaintiff * * *. The trial court considered the *301case as one against intervening defendants, rather than USF & Gr, yet the trial court did not enter judgment against the intervening defendants.”① We observed further that “the pleadings before this court do not provide any basis for entering a judgment against the intervening defendants.” This suggests that we would have entered a judgment for plaintiff against the intervening…