Legal Opinion

Tapping v. McIntosh

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided April 13, 1932PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDavis, J.

—It seems to me that the declaration in this case was sufficient to withstand a general demurrer such as was sustained by the trial judge.

The declaration sets out the terms of a building contract between plaintiff and McIntosh, the contractor. The contractor was to construct a building for plaintiff under the contract, plans and specifications, and the United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company became surety on a bond which was given by the contractor to save harmless the plaintiff in the event McIntosh failed to construct the dwelling in accordance with the plans and specifications attached…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Hazen v. Cobb-Vaughan Motor Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1928
  2. George A. Hormel & Co. v. American Bonding Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
  3. People ex rel. Kasson v. RoseIllinois Supreme Court · 1898
  4. National Surety Co. v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Florida · 1917
  5. Mayes v. LaneCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1903

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Ruwitch v. FIRST NATL. BANK OF MIAMIDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1974
  2. SCH. BD. OF PINELLAS CTY. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1984
  3. Isaac N. Daubmyre & American Surety Co. v. HunterSupreme Court of Florida · 1932
  4. Union Indemnity Co. v. VetterSupreme Court of Florida · 1932

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

Powered by the Exa API