Legal Opinion
Mion Chemical Brick Corp. v. Daniel Construction Co.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided February 24, 1965No. 40987, 40988PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Pannell, Judge.
Where a prime contractor, without claiming that the work is covered by the subcontract, orally orders extra work, as such, with notice that the subcontractor regards the work as extra and expects additional compensation therefor, the subcontractor can recover for the work notwithstanding a stipulation of the subcontract requiring a written order therefor. State Hwy. Dept. v. Wright Contracting Co., 107 Ga. App. 758, 764 (131 SE2d 808); see, generally, Anno, in 66 ALR 649; Bailey v. Martin, 101 Ga. App. 63 (112 SE2d 807); cp. Heard v. Dooly County, 101 Ga. 619 (2) (28 SE 986).…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited5 opinions
- State Highway Department v. Wright Contracting Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1963
- Indiana Truck Corp. v. GlockCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1933
- Neuhoff v. Swift & Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1936
- Heard v. Dooly CountySupreme Court of Georgia · 1897
- Bailey v. MartinCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1960
3Cited by8 opinions
- Brookhaven Landscape & Grading Co., Inc. v. J. F. Barton Contracting Company and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1982
- Excavators & Erectors, Inc. v. Bullard Engineers, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1973
- Biltmore Construction Co. v. Tri-State Electrical Contractors, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1976
- Clark v. Belleau, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1966
- Continental Casualty Co. v. Wilson-Avery, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1967
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.