Legal Opinion

Maryland Casualty Co. v. Hanlon

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided December 16, 1916PublishedCited by 4 opinions

On bill and answer.

1Opinion of the Court

Grikkin, Y. C.

The complainant, tty its bill, seeks to compel the defendant to convey certain lands to it under a supplemental indemnity agreement. The defendant, while admitting the agreement, says the contingency has not arisen which gives the complainant this right.

The ease discloses that Lincoln-Stoel-Fleming Company and Joseph A. Morrison, associated (hereinafter called the contractors), had a contract for the construction of certain sewers in district No. 9, town of Greenwich, Connecticut. The contractors, on July 8th, 1915, entered into a subcontract with Gibbons & Hanlon (hereinafter…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. American Surety Company v. PaulySupreme Court of the United States · 1898
  2. Tebbets v. Mercantile Credit Guarantee Co. of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1896

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Harney v. Indianapolis, Crawfordsville, & Danville RailroadIndiana Supreme Court · 1869
  2. Zuelly v. CasperIndiana Supreme Court · 1903
  3. Stockton v. Central RailroadNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1892
  4. Elkins v. Camden & Atlantic RailroadNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1882

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

Powered by the Exa API