Legal Opinion

Pneucrete Corp. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 22, 1935No. Civ. 9085PublishedCited by 36 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ROTH, J., pro tem.

On November 12, 1929, J. D. Harms, one of the appellants, as contractor, entered into a contract with Los Angeles County Flood Control District for certain mechanical work, to wit: ‘1 Guniting of levees in San Gabriel Wash”. Pursuant to the Public Works Act, Statutes of 1919, page 487, as amended to and including May 10, 1929, Harms, as principal, and appellant United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, as surety, executed and delivered to the district a “Bond for Materialmen and Laborers”, dated November 2, 1929, whereupon appellant Harms, as contractor, entered upon the…

2Cases cited33 opinions

  1. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
  2. Matter of Zimmerman v. . CohenNew York Court of Appeals · 1923
  3. City of Pasadena v. CharlevilleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  4. In Re the Arbitration Between Bullard & Morgan H. Grace Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1925
  5. National Surety Co. v. Bratnober Lumber Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1912

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

3Cited by36 opinions

  1. Lewis & Queen v. N. M. Ball SonsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  2. Local 659, I.A.T.S.E. v. Color Corp. of AmericaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
  3. Drake v. SteinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
  4. Independent School District No. 35 v. A. Hedenberg & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1943
  5. Jordan v. Pacific Automobile InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965

31 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