Russell v. Ross
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Myrick & Deering, Edward P. Treadwell, and Mastick & Partridge, for Appellant the Pacific Surety Company.
1Opinion of the CourtMelvin, J.
This action was brought to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract. The jury found a verdict for ten thousand dollars in favor of plaintiffs, and this appeal is prosecuted from the judgment and from the order denying defendants’ motion for a new trial.
It appears that in May, 1902, plaintiffs entered into a contract with defendant Ross for the building of the hull of a vessel at Coos Bay, Oregon, the price to be $26,725. The Pacific Surety Company executed and delivered to plaintiffs a bond in the sum of ten thousand dollars conditioned upon the faithful performance of the contract…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- County of Glenn v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Hampton v. ChristensenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- McMullin v. McMullinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Monro v. National Surety Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1907
- Casey v. LeggettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Callan v. Empire State Surety Co.California Court of Appeal · 1912
- American Surety Co. of N.Y. v. NoeCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1932
- Ohio Stock Food Co. v. GintlingOhio Court of Appeals · 1926
- Glens Falls Indemnity Co. v. Basich Bros.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1948
- Young Men's Christian Association's Assignee v. Indemnity Insurance Co. of North AmericaCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1932
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.