Cited by

In Union Sewer Pipe Co. v. Olson, 82 Minn. 187 , 84 N.W.

Co. 235 Minn. 243 , 50 N. W. (2d) 629 ; Pierce v. Grand Army of the Republic, 224 Minn. 248 , 28 N. W. (2d) 637 ; Oleson v. Bergwell, 204 Minn. 450 , ; Union Sewer Pipe Co. v. Olson, 82 Minn. 187 , ; 4 Dunnell, Dig.

Union Sewer Pipe Co. v. Olson, 82 Minn. 187 , .

Union Sewer Pipe Co. v. Olson, 82 Minn. 187, 190 , .

Giving the pleading a liberal construction we will treat the answer as including the recitals in the exhibit as substantive allegations of fqct (see Union S. P. Co. v. Olson, 82 Minn. 187 , ).

Union S. P. Co. v. Olson, 82 Minn. 187 , .

*259 “As against sureties no implications are to be made in giving construction, to the terms of a bond not clearly embraced within the language used, for it is well settled that sureties are only chargeable according to the strict terms of the bond.” 9 C. J. 32; Tomlinson v. Simpson, 33 Minn. 443 , ; Cushing v. Cable, 48 Minn. 3 , ; Union S. P. Co. v. Olson, 82 Minn. 187 , .

The decision of Union Sewer Pipe Co. v. Olson, 82 Minn. 187 , , also Fairmont C. S. Mnfg.

Although the parties there intended to give the statutory bond, all the terms called for by the statute were not inserted, and it was held, on the authority of Union Sewer Pipe Co. v. Olson, 82 *342 Minn. 187, 189 , , that liability conld not be extended beyond the, language of the bond.

See also Union Sewer Pipe Co. v. Olson, 82 Minn. 187 , ; Waterous Engine Works Co. v. Village of Clinton, 110 Minn. 267 , ; Scott-Graff Lumber Co. v. Independent School District No. 1, 112 Minn. 474 , .

Wilcox v. School District No. 268 of Otter Tail County, supra; Union Sewer Pipe Co. v. Olson, 82 Minn. 187 , .

In Union Sewer Pipe Co. v. Olson, 82 Minn. 187 , , a bond was held not to be statutory where it was conditioned, as said at page 189 of 82 Minn., and page 757 of 84 N. W., not that the principal “will faithfully perform the work or pay for the labor or material, but that he will for himself and his heirs, etc., contract to do so.” In Wilcox Lumber Co.

Hurlbert v. New Ulm Basket Works, 47 Minn. 81, 83 , ; Sprague v. Wells, 47 Minn. 504 , ; Union Sewer Pipe Co. v. Olson, 82 Minn. 187 , .

The case is wholly unlike Union Sewer Pipe Co. v. Olson, 82 Minn. 187 , .