Hill v. Cone
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Opinion of the Court
Kirby, J.,
(after stating the facts). Appellants insist that, upon a correct construction of the provision of the building contract relative thereto, the amount per day provided and required to be paid.and allowed to be charged against the contractor for the time required to construct and finish the improvement beyond the time it was agreed to be finished, should have been charged, and that the court erred in not rendering a judgment for the full amount claimed as liquidated damages by the board for such delay, and this contention must be sustained. The authorities are reviewed and the rule…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- United States v. GleasonSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Ripley v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Boston Store v. SchleuterSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1908
- Robbins v. PlantSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1927
- Carlile v. CorriganSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.