Legal Opinion
Graybar Electric Co. v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.
Tennessee Supreme Court
Decided May 3, 1948PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Gailob
This appeal presents a bill filed by a materialman, Graybar Electric Company, against the New Amsterdam Casualty Company, surety on a performance bond which has previously been considered by this Court in the case of Knoxville v. Burgess, Inc., et al., 180 Tenn. 412, 175 S. W. (2d) 548. The bill filed on December 14, 1944, alleges that on February 20, 1940, the Casualty Company became the surety of Melvin F. Burgess, Incorporated, upon a lien and completion bond on a contract which Burgess had to construct an extension to the electric distribution system of the City of Knoxville, and seeks…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Milliken v. MeyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Cromwell v. County of SacSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v. B. & C. Nieberg Realty Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1929
- Harris v. BalkSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. HuntSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- National Cordova Corp. v. City of MemphisTennessee Supreme Court · 1964
- American National Bank & Trust Co. of Chattanooga v. ClarkTennessee Supreme Court · 1979
- Henegar v. International Minerals & Chemical Corp.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1962
- AM. NAT. BANK & TRUST CO., ETC. v. ClarkTennessee Supreme Court · 1979
- Bailey v. SneedCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2001
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.