Legal Opinion
Robert & Co. Associates v. Pinkerton & Laws Co.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided June 10, 1969No. 44239PublishedCited by 30 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Jordan, Presiding Judge.
1. “The cardinal rule of construction is to ascertain the intention of the parties. If that intention be clear, and it contravenes no rule of law, and sufficient words be used to arrive at the intention, it shall be enforced, irespective of all technical or arbitrary rules of construction.” Code § 20-702.
Under the all-inclusive language of the agreement Pinkerton not only agreed to “be responsible from the time of signing the contract, or from the time of the beginning of the first work, whichever shall be earlier, for all injury or damage of any kind resulting from…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Batson-Cook Co. v. Georgia Marble Setting Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1965
- Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Macon Railway & Light Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1911
- Terrell v. StevensonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1895
- Southern Nitrogen Co. v. Stevens Shipping Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1966
- Massee & Felton Lumber Co. v. Georgia & Florida RailwaySupreme Court of Georgia · 1915
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- United States Lines, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1972
- Continental Heller v. AMTECH MECHANICAL SERV.California Court of Appeal · 1997
- Redfern Meats v. Hertz CorporationCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1975
- Ke-Wash Company v. Stauffer Chemical CompanySupreme Court of Iowa · 1970
- McNally & Nimergood v. Neumann-Kiewit Constructors, Inc.Supreme Court of Iowa · 2002
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.