Porter v. Eyer
Arizona Supreme Court
1DissentStruckmeyer, J.
I am in accord with the decision that the statute at the time of the execution of a statutory bond is a part of it and must be considered as incorporated therein. I cannot agree with the construction of the statute by the majority because I do not believe that it was designed to benefit laborers and material suppliers. The issue here being considered was initially raised in the defendants’ answer: “ * * * the 'bond referred to in plaintiffs’ complaint does not run to or for the benefit of plaintiffs.” Since the terms of the statute are incorporated in the bond, the question then becomes…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Woollcott v. . ShubertNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Adams v. BolinArizona Supreme Court · 1952
- Weber v. PinyanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
- Dean v. Metropolitan Elevated Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Roberts v. SprayArizona Supreme Court · 1950
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.