Multnomah County v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
Oregon Supreme Court
From Multnomah.: George N. Davis, Judge. Department 2. On January 27, 1916, plaintiff filed its complaint against the defendants in the Circuit Court of Multnomah County, and after the necessary corporate allegations avers that about January 21,1915, the defendant, Pacific Bridge Company, entered into a written contract with the plaintiff, Multnomah County, for the improvement of that portion of the Columbia River Highway known as Section D, in accord with the plans and…
Read the full summary
From Multnomah.: George N. Davis, Judge. Department 2. On January 27, 1916, plaintiff filed its complaint against the defendants in the Circuit Court of Multnomah County, and after the necessary corporate allegations avers that about January 21,1915, the defendant, Pacific Bridge Company, entered into a written contract with the plaintiff, Multnomah County, for the improvement of that portion of the Columbia River Highway known as Section D, in accord with the plans and specifications therefor, in and by which the contractor agreed “to furnish all materials, tools and equipment and all labor…
1Opinion of the CourtJohns, J.
The action is founded upon Section 6266, Lord’s Oregon Laws, which provides as follows:
“Hereafter any person or persons, firm or corporation, entering into a- formal contract with the State of Oregon, or any municipality, county, or school district within said state, for the construction of any buildings, or the prosecution and completion of any work, or for repairs upon any building or work, shall be required before commencing such work, to execute the usual penal bond with good and sufficient sureties, with the additional obligations1 that such contractor *149or contractors shall promptly make…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Multnomah County v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1918
- Chicago & Northeastern Railroad v. SturgisMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
- Hogan v. CushingWisconsin Supreme Court · 1880
3Cited by14 opinions
- Franzen v. Southern Surety Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1926
- Fulghum & Union Indemnity Co. v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1926
- Union Indemnity Co. v. State Ex Rel. R. S. Armstrong & Bro.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1928
- Portland v. O'NeillOregon Supreme Court · 1920
- Universal Electric Const. Co. of Alabama v. RobbinsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1940
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.