Los Angeles S. Co. v. National S. Co.
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
VICTOR E. SHAW, J., pro tem.
A cting under the city charter and pursuant to the provisions of the Vrooman Act, [Stats. 1885, p. 147], the board of public works of the city of Los Angeles duly entered into a contract with defendant Standard Construction & Development Company for the improvement of Melrose Avenue, in said city. By the terms of the contract the work was to be completed within 210 days from the date thereof, which was September 14, 1912. With the execution of the contract the contractor, as principal, and the National Surety Company, as surety, in pursuance with the provisions of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- United States Ex Rel. Hill v. American Surety Co. of NYSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- Guaranty Co. v. Pressed Brick Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Equitable Surety Co. v. United States Ex Rel. McMillanSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Bell v. KirklandSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
- Mining Co. v. CullinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Pneucrete Corp. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1935
- Powers Regulator Co. v. Seaboard Surety Co. of New YorkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Lewis & Queen v. S. Edmondson & SonsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
- Patten & Davies Lumber Co. v. McConvilleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
- Hub Hardware Co. v. Aetna Accident & Liab. Co.California Supreme Court · 1918
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.