Maine Central Railroad v. National Surety Co.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On report. Two actions against defendant as surety in the bonds given by a contractor to secure the performance of his contracts with the plaintiff for construction work. They are reported to the Law Court on an agreed statement of facts and are to be argued together. The cases are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtKing, J.
These actions are against the defendant as surety in the bonds given by a contractor to secure his contracts for construction work. They are reported on an agreed statement.
June 16,1909, William J. McHale entered into two contracts with the plaintiff, one for the construction of masonry work, and the other for the doing of grading and formation work, in revising the line and *467grade and double tracking a portion of the plaintiff’s railroad. The defendant became the surety in each bond given by McHale to secure his performance of the respective contracts. Each bond contained the following…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Inhabitants of Wakefield v. American Surety Co. of New YorkMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1911
- Watertown Fire Insurance v. SimmonsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1881
- St John's College v. . &198tna Indemnity Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1911
- County of Glenn v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. AgnewCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1907
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- In Re WillingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
- American Auto Insurance Co. v. United States of America, for the Use and Benefit of Alvah C. Luce, D/B/A Northern Electric Service & Supply Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1959
- Central Trust Co. v. ManlyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1939
- Crouse v. . StanleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
- Louden MacHinery Co. v. DaySupreme Court of Vermont · 1932
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.