Henningsen v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. of Baltimore
Supreme Court of the United States
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH ' CIRCUIT. • R. M. FIenningsen and Edward W. Clive, as copartners, in May, 1903, contracted with the United States for the construction of certain buildings at Fort Lawton, in the State of Washington, and entered into a bond with the United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company of Baltimore (hereinafter called the Guaranty Company) as surety in the penal sum of $11,625 for the faithful performance of the contract, and to…
Read the full summary
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH ' CIRCUIT. • R. M. FIenningsen and Edward W. Clive, as copartners, in May, 1903, contracted with the United States for the construction of certain buildings at Fort Lawton, in the State of Washington, and entered into a bond with the United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company of Baltimore (hereinafter called the Guaranty Company) as surety in the penal sum of $11,625 for the faithful performance of the contract, and to “promptly make full, payments to all persons supplying labor or materials in the prosecution of the work provided for in…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Brewer
A motion is made to dismiss on the ground that the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court was invoked solely on the ground of the diversity of citizenship of the parti.es, and hence the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals was final. The motion must be overruled. Diversity of citizenship was, it is true, alleged in the bills, but grounds of suit and relief were also based on the statutes of the United States, as from the discussion of the merits will be seen. Those statutes entered as elements into the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals, and were necessary elements. Howard v. United…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Prairie State Bank v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. MiddleportSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Howard v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. United States for the Benefit of KenyonSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Warner v. Searle & Hereth Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1903
3Cited by303 opinions
- Department of the Army v. Blue Fox, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Pearlman v. Reliance InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Standard Paint Co. v. Trinidad Asphalt Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. BraySupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Trans-Bay Engineers and Builders, Inc. v. Carla A. Hills, Secretary of Housing and Urban DevelopmentCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1976
298 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.