Ernst v. Cummings
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment for the defendants, and from an order refusing a new trial, in the Seventeenth District Court, County of Dos Angeles. Sepulveda, J. The findings referred to in the opinion arc as follow: “ 3rd.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment for the defendants, and from an order refusing a new trial, in the Seventeenth District Court, County of Dos Angeles. Sepulveda, J. The findings referred to in the opinion arc as follow: “ 3rd. That, the defendant Chisholm did, before the 1st day of September, 1877, furnish the materials, erect, furnish, and turn over to the plaintiff, the building provided for in said contract, ‘ Exhibit A,’ and did in every particular perform and discharge each and singular the obligations by him assumed in said contract. , “4th. That the plaintiff did not make the payments as agreed…
1Opinion of the Court
McKinstry, J.:
This action is to recover the sum of $594.75 upon a bond attached to a building contract. The obligation reads as follows :
“ Know all men by these presents, that I, Colin Chisholm, as principal, and George Cummings, as surety, all of the City and County of Los Angeles, State of California, arc held and firmly bound into H. Ernst, of the same place, in the sum of $1,500, gold coin of the United States of America, to be paid to the said *181II. Ernst, his executors, administrators, and assigns ; for which payment well and truly to be made we bind ourselves, our and each of our heirs,…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Medico-Dental Building Co. v. Horton & ConverseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Wilson v. WilsonIdaho Supreme Court · 1899
- Marchant v. HayesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Elson v. JonesIdaho Supreme Court · 1926
- Pacific Allied v. Century Steel Products, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1958
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.