Legal Opinion

Southern Surety Co. v. Metropolitan Sewerage Commission

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 22, 1923PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The following opinion was filed January 13, 1925:

Eschweiler, J.

The contract in question and the obligation of the plaintiff surety as to the several claims here involved require the consideration of two separate provisions found in ch. 289, Stats., entitled “Liens,” namely: sec. 3327a, providing for the form of contract, bond to be given, and remedy thereon in contracts involving public works; and sec. 3347dd, providing for the pro rata payment to claimants out of any withheld balances, on account of public work.

The substantial issue between the parties here is as to what may or may not be…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Mining Co. v. CullinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
  2. Barker & Stewart Lumber Co. v. Marathon Paper Mills Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1911
  3. Davis v. La Crosse Hospital Ass'nWisconsin Supreme Court · 1904
  4. Farmer v. St. Croix Power Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1903
  5. Shultz v. C. H. Quereau Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1914

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

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Peabody Seating Co. v. Jim Cullen, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1972
  2. Lembke Construction Co. v. JD Coggins CompanyNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1963
  3. Pittsburgh v. Parkview Construction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
  4. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Eagle River Union Free High School DistrictWisconsin Supreme Court · 1926
  5. Knuth v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New YorkWisconsin Supreme Court · 1957

20 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