Interstate Const. Co. v. Lakeview Canal Co.
Wyoming Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Blume, Justice.
This ease involves a “cost-plus” contract, and, like many other contracts of that kind has resulted in trouble. The Interstate Construction Company, plaintiff below and appellant here, is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Colorado, and on April 3, 1920 entered into a contract at Denver, Colorado with the Lakeview Canal Co., respondent herein, whereby the appellant agreed to enlarge and extend the so-called Hammitt canal in Park County, Wyoming, the whole work involving the excavation of approximately 1.68,000 cubic yards. Appellant agreed to complete the…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Browning v. City of WaycrossSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- York Manufacturing Co. v. ColleySupreme Court of the United States · 1918
- General Railway Signal Co. v. Virginia Ex Rel. State Corporation Comm'nSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
- S. R. Smythe Co. v. Ft. Worth Glass & Sand Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1912
- S. R. Smythe Co. v. Ft. Worth Glass & Sand Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1912
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Perkins Manufacturing Co. v. Clinton Construction Co.California Supreme Court · 1930
- United Pacific Insurance Co. v. Martin & Luther General Contractors, Inc.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1969
- State Ex Rel. Eaton v. HirstWyoming Supreme Court · 1938
- Creamery Package Mfg. Co. v. Cheyenne Ice Cream Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1940
- Louis Ilfeld Co. v. Union Pac. R.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1927
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.