United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Tate County
Mississippi Supreme Court
Appeal from the circuit court of Tate county. Hon. E. D. Dinkins, Judge. Suit by Tate County against the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the circuit court of Tate county. Hon. E. D. Dinkins, Judge. Suit by Tate County against the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. One Clarke entered into a contract with the board of supervisors of Tate county for working the public roads of said county, which contract provided that: “This contract is to begin and be in force from and after the 1st day of February, 1912, until the 1st day of January, 1914, and during said term all of said roads shall be worked, constructed, and built and maintained according to…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, C. J.
The rule announced in Armfield v. Nash, 31 Miss. 361, followed in Williams v. Luckett, 77 Miss. 394, 26 So. 967, and relied upon by counsel for appellee, has no application here; for, while Clarke’s compensation for working the roads was to be paid him in installments, his work upon the roads was not to be performed by installments, but was to be continuous, so that his obligation under the contract was not divisible, but was entire. When he unqualifiedly refused to continue to work the roads, and appellee, as it ha'd the right to do, treated his refusal as a total breach of the contract, and…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Roehm v. HorstSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Armfield v. NashMississippi Supreme Court · 1856
- Williams v. LuckettMississippi Supreme Court · 1899
3Cited by2 opinions
- Williams v. Mid-South Paving Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1946
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Jefferson Davis CountyMississippi Supreme Court · 1917