Baum v. County of Whatcom

54 P. 29, 19 Wash. 626, 1898 Wash. LEXIS 438
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 20, 1898
DocketNo. 2787
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 54 P. 29 (Baum v. County of Whatcom) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Baum v. County of Whatcom, 54 P. 29, 19 Wash. 626, 1898 Wash. LEXIS 438 (Wash. 1898).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant let a contract to one Moran for the construction and improvement of a county road. The contract provided that the contractor should •execute a bond containing the provisions of § 2415, 1 Hill’s Code (Bal. Code, § 5925). A bond was executed accordingly, but contained a recital that it was executed as a ■common law bond, and not in pursuance of the statute .aforesaid, and also that under the decisions of the supreme •court it was not required to take a bond to secure the per.formance of the contract, etc. The plaintiff furnished supplies to the contractor for his use in the construction of the road, which were not wholly paid for; and he brought this action against the county for a failure to take a bond under the statute, relying upon the statement in the bond that it was not taken thereunder, and upon the further fact that he, not being a party to the bond, could not avail himself of its provisions; citing Sears v. Williams, 9 Wash. 428 (37 Pac. 665). It being conceded that the bond •contained all the conditions required by the statute, the recital that it was taken, not as a statutory, but as a common law, bond, would not vitiate it; and the case referred to was overruled in the particular mentioned in State v. [628]*628Liebes, ante, p.589, decided July 6, 1898. The holding in that case disposes of this one, and the judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

B. Nicoll & Co. v. National Surety Co.
295 P. 1065 (California Court of Appeal, 1931)
Fidelity Deposit Co. of Baltimore, Md. v. Rainer
125 So. 55 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1929)
Gary Hay Grain Co., Inc. v. Carlson
255 P. 722 (Montana Supreme Court, 1927)
Wallace Equipment Co. v. Graves
231 P. 458 (Washington Supreme Court, 1924)
Smith v. Town of Tukwila
203 P. 369 (Washington Supreme Court, 1922)
Du Pont De Nemours Powder Co. v. National Surety Co.
155 P. 1050 (Washington Supreme Court, 1916)
Rust v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
151 P. 248 (Washington Supreme Court, 1915)
Pacific Bridge Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
73 P. 772 (Washington Supreme Court, 1903)
McDonald v. Davey
60 P. 1116 (Washington Supreme Court, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
54 P. 29, 19 Wash. 626, 1898 Wash. LEXIS 438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baum-v-county-of-whatcom-wash-1898.