Maryland Casualty Co. v. Hanlon
New Jersey Court of Chancery
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
- American Surety Company v. PaulySupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Tebbets v. Mercantile Credit Guarantee Co. of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1896
3Cited by4 opinions
- Harney v. Indianapolis, Crawfordsville, & Danville RailroadIndiana Supreme Court · 1869
- Zuelly v. CasperIndiana Supreme Court · 1903
- Stockton v. Central RailroadNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1892
- Elkins v. Camden & Atlantic RailroadNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1882