Legal Opinion · Dissent

Joint School District No. 4 v. Bailey-Marsh Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 18, 1923Published

1DissentCrownhart, J.

The surety contract was for pay, and the old rules of gratuitous surety do not apply. A surety for a consideration is held to be an insurer of the performance of the principal contract. Milwaukee B. S. Co. v. Illinois S. Co. 163 Wis. 48, 157 N. W. 545; Builders L. & S. Co. v. Chicago B. & S. Co. 167 Wis. 167, 166 N. W. 320.

The principal contract here called for the building of a school house according to specifications of the architect within a given time, payments to be made to the contractor or his assigns on the certificates of -the architect.

The building was not completed on time, but the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Builders Lumber & Supply Co. v. Chicago Bonding & Surety Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1918
  2. Milwaukee Building Supply Co v. Illinois Surety Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1916

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

Powered by the Exa API