Phillips v. City of Bartlesville

Phillips v. City of Bartlesville, 1915 OK 276, 148 P. 1016

Court: Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided: May 11, 1915
Docket: No. 4778
Judges: Thacker
Citations: 148 P. 10161915 OK 27646 Okla. 3091915 Okla. LEXIS 1164
Disposition: Affirmed.

Cited by 0

Syllabus

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — Pavement Contractor's Bond — Implied Guaranty — Liability of Obligor. A bond, taken as authorized by Session Laws 1907-08, p. 170 (section 725, Comp. L. 1909), for the maintenance in good condition of a pavement, to be constructed by the principal therein, for the period of five years from the time of its completion, implies an unconditional guaranty of the adequacy of the work and material, done and furnished according to the municipality’s plans and specifications, to endure for such period without need of repairs; and the obligors in such bond are not relieved from liability by the fact that the principal therein, as contractor, fully complied with such plans and specifications in respect to both work and material, and that repairs within that period were necessitated by the inadequacy of such plans and specifications. (Syllabus by Thacker, C.)

Summary

Errar from District Court, Washington County; R. II. Hudson, Judge. Action by the City of Bartlesville, a municipal corporation, against Frank Phillips. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Thacker

THACKER, C.

This is an action upon the bond mentioned in the case of R. S. Gilfillan and A. B. Gilfillan, Partners Doing-Business under the Firm Name and Style of R. S. Gilfillan & Son, Plaintiffs in Error, v. City of Bartlesville, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant in Error (No. 3706) 148 Pac. 1012 , reported in this volume.

The plaintiffs in error in that case are the principals in the *310 bond sued on here; and reference is here now made to that case for the facts essential to a decision in this, which must follow the decision in that.

The bond sued on and the judgment recovered in the instant case, however, is only for the sum of $2,000; and, of course, payment upon the judgment in the instant case would, pro ianto, entitle the debtors to a credit upon the judgment in that, while payment in that case, which reduces the judgment debt below the amount of the judgment here, would, pro tanto•, entitle the debtors to a credit upon the judgment here. • For the reasons stated in that case, the judgment of the trial court in the instant case should be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 1

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Gilfillan v. City of Bartlesville, 1915 OK 302, 148 P. 1012	13

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list