Legal Opinion

Schisel v. Marvill

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided March 13, 1924PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEvans, J.

— I. It appears from the petition that the defendant Marvill entered into a contract with the supervisors of Winnebago County for the graveling of certain highways. The consideration of the contract was $24,508. Pursuant to the statute, a contractor’s bond for such. exact amount was given tor the lull performance of the contract. The defendants Larson and Dray were employees of the contractor, and the other defendants were sureties on the contractor’s bond. The petition avers that the employees Larson and Dray were engaged in hauling gravel over the highway, in performance of the contract ;…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. PoetkerIndiana Supreme Court · 1913
  2. Inge v. Board of Public Works of MobileSupreme Court of Alabama · 1902
  3. Electric Appliance Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
  4. Anderson v. FullerSupreme Court of Florida · 1906
  5. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Iowa Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1916

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

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Curtis v. MichaelsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1928
  2. Philip Carey Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1926
  3. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Thomlinson-Arkwright Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1943
  4. Union Indemnity Co. v. State Ex Rel. McQueen Smith Farming Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1927
  5. City of Charles City v. RasmussenSupreme Court of Iowa · 1929

22 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