Baum v. Whatcom County
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM. |
| Citation | 19 Wash. 626,54 P. 29 |
| Decision Date | 20 July 1898 |
| Parties | BAUM v. WHATCOM COUNTY. |
54 P. 29
19 Wash. 626
BAUM
v.
WHATCOM COUNTY.
Supreme Court of Washington
July 20, 1898
Appeal from superior court, Whatcom county; H. E. Hadley, Judge.
Action by Philip Baum against the county of Whatcom. There was a judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
[19 Wash. 627] Fairchild & Bruce and Frye & Webster, for appellant.
J. W. Romaine, for respondent.
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 section 2415, 1 Hill's Code. 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 performance 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 P. 665, 38 P. 135, and 39 P. 280. 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. [19 Wash. 628] Liebes (decided July 6, 1898) 54 P. 26. The holding in that case disposes of this one, and the judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gary Hay & Grain Co. v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md., Nos. 6058
...115 N. W. 811;Jordan v. Kavanaugh, 63 Iowa, 152, 18 N. W. 851; Evans & Howard Co. v. National Surety Co., above; Baum v. Whatcom County, 19 Wash. 626, 54 P. 29;National Surety Co. v. Foster Lumber Co., 42 Ind. App. 671, 85 N. E. 489;Devers v. Howard, 144 Mo. 671, 46 S. W. 625;Lyman v. City ......
-
Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Baltimore, Md., v. Rainer, 3 Div. 876.
...rule. "But respondent argues that we held in effect in State, ex rel. Bartelt v. Liebes, 19 Wash. 589, 54 P. 26; Baum v. Whatcom County, 19 Wash. 626, 54 P. McDonald v. Davey, 22 Wash. 366, 60 P. 1116, and Pacific Bridge Co. v. U.S. Fidelity, etc., Co., 33 Wash. 56, 73 P. 772, that contract......
-
Whitley v. Towle, 29921
...claim of homestead exemption, the decree cannot be questioned collaterally. New Mexico Nat. Bank v. Brooks, 49 P. 949; Plant v. Carpenter, 19 Wash. 626, 53 P. 1109; Graham v. Culver, 3 Wyo. 655, 31 Am. St. Rep. 120, 29 P. 276. The exemption of wages is a benefit of which the debtor may, if ......
-
Smith v. Town of Tukwila, 16593.
...to be placed thereon before it was submitted to the appellant. State ex rel. v. Liebes, 19 Wash. 589, 54 P. 26; Braum v. Whatcom County, 19 Wash. 626, 54 P. 29; Puget Sound State Bank v. Gallucci, 82 Wash. 445, 144 P. 698, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 767. A discussion of the cases which relieve person......
-
Gary Hay & Grain Co. v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md., Nos. 6058
...115 N. W. 811;Jordan v. Kavanaugh, 63 Iowa, 152, 18 N. W. 851; Evans & Howard Co. v. National Surety Co., above; Baum v. Whatcom County, 19 Wash. 626, 54 P. 29;National Surety Co. v. Foster Lumber Co., 42 Ind. App. 671, 85 N. E. 489;Devers v. Howard, 144 Mo. 671, 46 S. W. 625;Lyman v. City ......
-
Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Baltimore, Md., v. Rainer, 3 Div. 876.
...rule. "But respondent argues that we held in effect in State, ex rel. Bartelt v. Liebes, 19 Wash. 589, 54 P. 26; Baum v. Whatcom County, 19 Wash. 626, 54 P. McDonald v. Davey, 22 Wash. 366, 60 P. 1116, and Pacific Bridge Co. v. U.S. Fidelity, etc., Co., 33 Wash. 56, 73 P. 772, that contract......
-
Whitley v. Towle, 29921
...claim of homestead exemption, the decree cannot be questioned collaterally. New Mexico Nat. Bank v. Brooks, 49 P. 949; Plant v. Carpenter, 19 Wash. 626, 53 P. 1109; Graham v. Culver, 3 Wyo. 655, 31 Am. St. Rep. 120, 29 P. 276. The exemption of wages is a benefit of which the debtor may, if ......
-
Smith v. Town of Tukwila, 16593.
...to be placed thereon before it was submitted to the appellant. State ex rel. v. Liebes, 19 Wash. 589, 54 P. 26; Braum v. Whatcom County, 19 Wash. 626, 54 P. 29; Puget Sound State Bank v. Gallucci, 82 Wash. 445, 144 P. 698, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 767. A discussion of the cases which relieve person......