Legal Opinion

Bateman Brothers v. Mapel

California Supreme Court

Decided November 5, 1904No. S.F. No. 2967PublishedCited by 13 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.

This action was prosecuted by plaintiffs against the defendant Mapel, as principal, and the defendant American Surety Company of New York, as surety, for the sum of two thousand dollars, damages sustained by plaintiffs by reason of defendant Mapel’s breach of a contract between himself and the plaintiffs, for the due performance of which contract the American Surety Company became responsible as surety. The action was tried against the Surety Company alone.

Mapel had entered into a contract with the plaintiffs to supply the latter at the site of the Hall of Justice building in San Francisco…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. United States v. TillotsonU.S. Circuit Court for New York · 1823

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Dunne Investment Co. v. Empire State Surety Co.California Court of Appeal · 1915
  2. Museum of Fine Arts v. American Bonding Co. of BaltimoreMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912
  3. Mazzera v. RamseyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
  4. Russell v. RossCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
  5. Burr v. GardellaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API