Legal Opinion

Moosup Trucking Co. v. John A. MacDonald State Highway Commissioner

Connecticut Superior Court

Decided May 10, 1937No. File #52368PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCornell, J.

In its complaint, the plaintiff alleges, in brief, that, as a subcontractor, it furnished material and labor in the construction of certain public highways in the town of Woodbury in connection with the performance of a contract therefore originally let by the State Highway Commissioner to The Silliman 6? Godfrey Co.; that pursuant to the provb sions of General Statutes, Revision 1930, §5109, Cumulative Supplement, 1935, §1594c, it filed its claim with the State Highway Commissioner but that the latter has failed and refuses to pay plaintiff a balance of $3,613.55 due it thereon, with…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Foote v. BartholomewSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1925
  2. State v. KilburnSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1908
  3. State v. EricksonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
  4. State v. StaubSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1892
  5. Munson v. MacDonald, Highway CommissionerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1931

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Calderon v. Ackerman, No. Cv89 0103001 S (Aug. 28, 1991)Connecticut Superior Court · 1991
  2. Forader v. Windsor Lodge 2060, No. 377891 (May 7, 1991)Connecticut Superior Court · 1991

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

Powered by the Exa API