In re Dutcher Construction Corporation
Decision Date | 06 February 1962 |
Docket Number | No. 197,Docket 27246.,197 |
Citation | 298 F.2d 655 |
Parties | In the Matter of DUTCHER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Bankrupt. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Raymond T. Miles, Buffalo, N. Y., for appellant, Chester A. Pearlman, Trustee in Bankruptcy of Dutcher Construction Corporation.
Mark N. Turner, Buffalo, N. Y. (Vaughan, Brown, Kelly, Turner & Symons, Buffalo, N. Y., on the brief), for respondent, Reliance Ins. Co.
John G. Street, Jr., Fort Worth, Tex., amicus curiæ supporting the contentions of appellant.
Thomas W. Murphy, Phoenix, Ariz. (Murphy & Mirkin, Phoenix, Ariz.), amicus curiae supporting the contentions of appellant.
Before MEDINA, MOORE and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The trustee in bankruptcy of Dutcher Construction Corporation appeals from an order of Judge Henderson, reversing the Referee and holding that petitioner-appellee Reliance Insurance Company (formerly named Fire Association of Philadelphia) was entitled to a fund of $87,737.35 previously paid by the Government to the trustee. Opinion below reported at 197 F.Supp. 441.
The case is interesting and important, as it involves the controversial question of whether a surety, having paid materialmen and laborers pursuant to the terms of a payment bond, but not having completed performance of work required by the prime contract with the Government, is entitled by way of subrogation to the fund paid to the trustee in bankruptcy by the Government for the work done by the contractor prior to the termination of the contract. We think the legal principles formulated by the courts on this subject under the Heard Act, 28 Stat. 278 (1894), amended 33 Stat. 811 (1905), were not affected or altered by the Miller Act, 49 Stat. 793 (1935), 40 U.S.C.A. § 270a, which superseded the Heard Act. With all due respect to our brothers of the 9th and 10th Circuits, we believe they have misconstrued the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Munsey Trust Company, 1947, 332 U.S. 234, 67 S.Ct. 1599, 91 L.Ed. 2022, and we disagree with the decisions in those Circuits holding the surety not entitled to subrogation. Phoenix Indemnity Co. v. Earle, 9 Cir., 1955, 218 F.2d 645; American Surety Co. of New York v. Hinds, 10 Cir., 1958, 260 F.2d 366.
The facts are stipulated. In April of 1955 Dutcher contracted with the United States to perform work on the Saint Lawrence Seaway project. Prior to awarding the contract, the Government required Dutcher to supply the customary surety bonds, a performance bond and a payment bond. This was done pursuant to the Miller Act, 40 U.S.C.A. § 270a, which provides:
Reliance is the surety on these bonds.
On April 11, 1956 the Government, with the consent of Dutcher, terminated the contract. During the preceding year Dutcher incurred obligations to pay for labor and materials in the performance of the contract. Dutcher did not meet these obligations. The surety did pay them, in the amount of $326,248.42, for labor and materials, and additional sums for expenses, and in satisfaction of a judgment against the surety for tires furnished for use on the job, amounting in all to $349,172.81. These bills were paid by the surety in the Spring and Summer of 1956. At the end of August, 1956 Dutcher was adjudicated bankrupt.
Prior to the termination of the contract, Dutcher had earned, after Government deductions, $127,737.35 for the work done up to that time, and this represented the labor and materials that had gone into the job. This sum, owing to Dutcher, was reduced by $40,000, the cost to the Government of completing the job. This consisted of the proper shaping and dressing of the spoil area. The balance, $87,737.35, was paid by the Government to appellant, as Trustee for Dutcher. The surety petitioned for an order in bankruptcy directing the transfer of this fund to the surety. The Referee, relying upon Munsey and the Hinds decision by the 10th Circuit denied the petition, and Judge Henderson reversed the Referee and held the surety entitled to the fund by subrogation. We affirm.
All parties agree that the surety is subrogated to the rights of the laborers and materialmen. What this entitles the surety to is hornbook law and is set forth in Osborne, Suretyship (1955) at page 20, "It * * * entitles the surety to enjoy any priority that the creditor enjoyed." See also Restatement, Security § 141, comment c. (1941). Thus, the only question in this case, and the decisive one, is — were the laborers and materialmen entitled to a priority in the $87,737.35?
The Heard Act required a contractor entering on the construction of any public work for the United States to "execute the usual penal bond, with good and sufficient sureties, with the additional obligations that such contractor or contractors shall promptly make payments to all persons supplying him or them labor and materials in the prosecution of the work provided for in such contract." 33 Stat. 812 (1905). In Henningsen v. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 1907, 208 U.S. 404, 28 S.Ct. 389, 52 L.Ed. 547, the surety which had paid materialmen and laborers upon the contractor's failure to do so, claimed a fund due from the Government as against a creditor of the contractor who held an assignment. It was argued by the creditor that the surety had no right prior to the assignment as the materialmen and the laborers had no lien on the Government property under construction, as the contractor and not the surety had completed performance under the contract, and as the materialmen and the laborers never had any right to the fund. In rejecting these contentions the Supreme Court held, 208 U.S. at page 410, 28 S.Ct. at page 391:
This would seem to be plain enough. But Henningsen was commented upon in Belknap Hardware & Mfg. Co. v. Ohio River Contract Co., 6 Cir., 1921, 271 F. 144, and the priority of materialmen and laborers spelled out in no uncertain terms, at pp. 148-149:
It is common knowledge that difficulties and inconveniences...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Am. Fid. Fire Ins. Co. v. Construcciones Werl, Inc.
...(10th Cir. 1958) and Phoenix Indemnity Company v. Earle, 218 F.2d 645 (9th Cir. 1955). 25. See, for example, In re Dutcher Construction Corporation, 298 F.2d 655 (2nd Cir. 1962), Continental Casualty Company v. United States, 145 Ct. Cl. 99, 169 F.Supp. 945 (1959), National Surety Corporati......
-
Logan Planing Mill Co. v. Fidelity and Casualty Co. of NY
...for the full payment of the full value thereof." 2 In re Dutcher Construction Corp., 197 F.Supp. 441 (D.C.W.D.N.Y.1961). 3 298 F.2d 655 (C.A.Cir., 1962). ...
-
Am. Fidelity Fire Ins. Co. v. Construcciones Werl, Inc.
...366 (10th Cir. 1958) and Phoenix Indemnity Company v. Earle, 218 F.2d 645 (9th Cir. 1955). 4 See, for example, In re Dutcher Construction Corporation, 298 F.2d 655 (2nd Cir. 1962); Continental Casualty Company v. United States, 169 F.Supp. 945, 145 Ct.Cl. 99 (1959); National Surety Corporat......
-
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Harvard Trust Co.
...funds in the hands of the government or the contractor. See Matter of Dutcher Constr. Corp., 197 F.Supp. 441 (W.D.N.Y.), affd. 298 F.2d 655 (2 Cir.). See also Continental Cas. Co. v. United States, 145 Ct.Cl. 99, 169 F.Supp. 945, 946-947.9 The payments made to Harvard prior to February 3, 1......