Pray

Smith Engineering Co. v. Pray

Good Law
58 F.2d 926·1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 4799
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 31, 1932No. 6821California1,730 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Wilbur, J.

The petitioners seek a writ of mandamus directed to the respondent to compel the trial, as at common law before a jury, of the legal issues in certain consolidated eases growing out of a building contract, claiming that the order of the respondent for the trial of these consolidated cases and reference of such eases to a master to take evidence upon all the issues therein in effect deprives petitioners of their constitutional right to a trial by jury.

The situation arises from the contract entered into by the Smith Engineering Company, as contractor, and the Laurel Oil & Refining Company, as owner, for the erection of an oil refinery and other structures. We will hereinafter refer to the Smith Engineering Company as “the contractor,” the American Surety Company of New York which gave a bond for the faithful performance of the contract as “the surety company,” or to both as “petitioners,” and to the Laurel Oil & Refining Company as “the owner.”

The contractor, claiming that it had partly performed the contract and had been prevented by the owner from fully completing it, brought an action for the foreclosure of mechanic’s lien for the reasonable value of the work and materials…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.