Legal Opinion

Crouse v. . Stanley

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided July 2, 1930PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBbogdeN, J.

Did the failure of the plaintiff to preserve and hold the retained percentage release the defendant surety from any and all obligation upon' its bond ?

Tbe legal status of retained percentage in contracts of the kind involved in this controversy has been thus declared in Insurance Co. v. Durham County, 190 N. C., 58, 128 S. E., 469: “The contract provision that 85 per cent of the value of labor and material used during the previous month, as estimated by the architect, shall be paid by the owner to the contractor at the dates specified during the progress of the work creates in the 15 per cent…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Prairie State Bank v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
  2. Inhabitants of Wakefield v. American Surety Co. of New YorkMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1911
  3. Van Buren County v. American Surety Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1908
  4. Maine Central Railroad v. National Surety Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1915
  5. Commercial Casualty Insurance v. Durham CountySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. SALEM REALTY COMPANY v. BatsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
  2. Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Board of EducationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
  3. Gardner v. . MooseSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
  4. Duplin County v. TeacheySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1933
  5. Durham Shopping Center, Inc. v. Orco, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984

2 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