Panama Commercial Co. v. Tingey

California Court of Appeal

Panama Commercial Co. v. Tingey

147 P. 585, 26 Cal. App. 576

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 17, 1915

DocketCiv. No. 1643.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 147 P. 585 (Panama Commercial Co. v. Tingey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Panama Commercial Co. v. Tingey, 147 P. 585, 26 Cal. App. 576 (Cal. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

SHAW, J.

The facts in this case are identical with those in the case of Williams v. Tingey, ante, p. 574, [147 Pac. 584] *577 (Civ. No. 1625), an opinion in which was this day filed affirming the judgment.

Plaintiff obtained judgment, from which defendant United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company appeals.

The only point made herein by appellant, other than those presented in the other case, is that the action was to recover on the bond the value of the materials furnished and it appeared in the course of the trial that the materials were furnished pursuant to a contract made with one Rubendahl, sub-contractor under Tingey. The action was to recover upon the covenant contained in the bond to the effect that defendant Tingey and appellant would pay for the materials used in the performance of the work. While the price specified in the contract would be the measure of recovery in an action thereon against Rubendahl, with whom the contract was made, nevertheless, as against defendants, in an action on the bond the measure of recovery as against them was the value of the materials, which appears to have been as specified in the contract under which the materials were furnished to Rubendahl.

The judgment is affirmed.

Conrey, P. J., and James, J., concurred.

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

SHAW, J.

The facts in this case are identical with those in the case of Williams v. Tingey, ante, p. 574, [147 Pac. 584] *577 (Civ. No. 1625), an opinion in which was this day filed affirming the judgment.

Plaintiff obtained judgment, from which defendant United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company appeals.

The only point made herein by appellant, other than those presented in the other case, is that the action was to recover on the bond the value of the materials furnished and it appeared in the course of the trial that the materials were furnished pursuant to a contract made with one Rubendahl, sub-contractor under Tingey. The action was to recover upon the covenant contained in the bond to the effect that defendant Tingey and appellant would pay for the materials used in the performance of the work. While the price specified in the contract would be the measure of recovery in an action thereon against Rubendahl, with whom the contract was made, nevertheless, as against defendants, in an action on the bond the measure of recovery as against them was the value of the materials, which appears to have been as specified in the contract under which the materials were furnished to Rubendahl.

The judgment is affirmed.

Conrey, P. J., and James, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 P. 585, 26 Cal. App. 576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/panama-commercial-co-v-tingey-calctapp-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack