Legal Opinion

Borough of Somerset v. Barber

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 16, 1931No. Appeal 88PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Cunningham, J.,

The action below was assumpsit for the use of a material-man to recover on a bond given the Borough of Somerset by a contractor and his surety.

Barber, one of the defendants, entered into a contract with the borough to do certain street paving and in compliance with the contract furnished a bond upon which the other defendant, Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, was surety. The condition of the bond is as follows:

“Now, therefore, The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden principal as contractor shall in all respects comply with the terms of the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Greene County v. Southern Surety Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  2. H. H. Robertson Co. v. Globe Indemnity Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
  3. School District v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
  4. Patterson v. New Eagle BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
  5. Portland Sand & Gravel Co. v. Globe Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. City of Pgh. v. Commercial Casualty Ins.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  2. Commonwealth v. Great American Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933

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

Powered by the Exa API