Neary v. Puget Sound Engineering Co.
Decision Date | 07 January 1921 |
Docket Number | 15907. |
Citation | 194 P. 830,114 Wash. 1 |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Parties | NEARY et al. v. PUGET SOUND ENGINEERING CO. et al. |
Department 2.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Everett Smith, Judge.
Action by Edwin Neary and another against the Puget Sound Engineering Company and another. From a judgment of dismissal, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
Edgar J. Wright, of Seattle, for appellant Neary.
Kelleran & Hannan, of Seattle, for appellant Sparks.
Roberts & Skeel and L. B. Schwellenbach, all of Seattle, for respondents.
In April, 1919, the respondent Puget Sound Engineering Company entered into a contract with the city of Kent to pave certain streets and, as required by the contract, gave a bond executed by the respondent United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, conditioned:
'This bond is executed in pursuance of the laws of the state of Washington, as now in force, and is subject to all the provisions thereof, and is entered into with the city of Kent Wash., its mayor and common council, and also for the use of persons who may perform or cause to be performed any work or labor, or or material in the execution of a certain contract made the 25th day of April, A. D. 1919, between the said principal, the Puget Sound Engineering Company, and the city of Kent, its mayor and common council, for the improvement of Harrison street et al., as ordered by Ordinance No 417-418-419-420 approved local improvement district No. 181A 181B, 182A, 182B, and 183, by paving, in accordance with said contract, which contract is hereby attached and made a part hereof.'
The contract attached to and made a part of the bond provides:
Thereafter the contractor entered into an agreement with one L. P. Harmon, in which contract Harmon agreed:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
W.A. Ross Const. Co. v. Chiles
... ... Carterville Const. Co., 220 Mo.App. 244, 284 ... S.W. 150; Neary v. Puget Sound Engineering Co., 114 ... Wash. 1, 194 P. 830; Baker v ... ...
-
Morris County Indus. Park v. Thomas Nicol Co.
...Baker v. Yakima Valley Canal Co., 77 Wash. 70, 137 P. 342 (Sup.Ct.1913) (gravel loaded but not delivered); Neary v. Puget Sound Engineering Co., 114 Wash. 1, 194 P. 830 (Sup.Ct.1921) (sand and gravel delivered at work site); Marsh v. Rothey, 117 W.Va. 94, 183 S.E. 914 (Sup.Ct.App.1936) (cru......
-
Everett Concrete Products, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industries
...are not required to pay their employees prevailing wages, but held that ECP was a subcontractor, as defined in Neary v. Puget Sound Eng'g Co., 114 Wash. 1, 8, 194 P. 830 (1921). Neary stated that a subcontractor is "one who takes from the principal contractor a specific part of the work." T......
-
Crabtree v. Lewis
...the same purpose was recognized in Hall & Olswang v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 161 Wash. 38, 296 P. 162 (1931), and Neary v. Puget Sound Eng'r Co., 114 Wash. 1, 194 P. 830 (1921). Thus it appears that the statutes require not only that the bond which is furnished the prime contractor shall run......