Legal Opinion
Lumber Co. v. . Johnson
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided January 3, 1919PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
It is the well-established principle in this jurisdiction that the beneficiaries may recover on a bond of this character (47) — usually laborers and materialmen — when there is express provision to that effect, or when it appears by fair and reasonable intendment that these rights and interests were contemplated and being provided for. McCausland v. Construction Co., 172 N.C. 708-711, citing Morton v. Water Co., 168 N.C. 582; Withers v. Poe, 167 N.C. 372;Supply Co. v. Lumber Co., 160 N.C. 428; Town of Gastonia v.Engineering Co., 131 N.C. 363; Gorrell v. Water Co., 124 N.C. 328.
From the…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Insurance Co. v. WilkinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- American Surety Company v. PaulySupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Gorrell v. Greensboro Water Supply Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1899
- Daniel v. RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
- International Harvester Co. of America v. CampbellCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1906
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Commercial Solvents, Inc. v. JohnsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
- Martinez v. JohnsonNevada Supreme Court · 1941
- Robert Whitmire v. Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2022
- St. Paul Foundry Co. v. EvensonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
- Cincinnati Insurance v. Centech Building Corp.District Court, M.D. North Carolina · 2003
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.