Legal Opinion

Peterson v. United States Ex Rel. Marsh Lumber Co.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided April 14, 1941No. 8507PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HAMILTON, Circuit Judge.

This is an action under the Heard Act, 40 U.S.C.A. § 270. Appellants are the contractor and his surety, respectively. Ap-pellees are mechanics, laborers or material-men of a subcontractor.

On June 3, 1933, the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District was organized as a body corporate and political subdivision of Ohio, under authority of the State Conservancy Act (Sections 6828-1 to 6828-79 of the Ohio General Code). The purpose of its organization was flood prevention and regulation of the flow of streams in the drainage basin of Muskingum River, which empties into the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Brown v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
  2. Title Guaranty & Trust Co. of Scranton v. Crane Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1910
  3. United States v. Ansonia Brass & Copper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1910
  4. Maiatico Const. Co. v. United States Ex Rel. PhelpsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1935
  5. Chattanooga & Tennessee River Power Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1913

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. United States Ex Rel. Noland Co. v. IrwinSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
  2. Regal Industrial Corp. v. Crum & Forster, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  3. Gypsum Contractors, Inc. v. American Surety CompanySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1962
  4. United States Ex Rel. Gamerston & Green Lumber Co. v. Phœnix Assurance Co. of New YorkDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1958
  5. United States ex rel. General Electric Supply Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1993

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API