73, Puget Sound Brick, Tile & Terra Cotta Co. v. School Dist. No. 73 of King County

• Decision Date: 13 June 1895
• Citation: 40 P. 608,12 Wash. 118
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: PUGET SOUND BRICK, TILE & TERRA COTTA CO. v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 73, KING COUNTY.

40 P. 608

12 Wash. 118

PUGET SOUND BRICK, TILE & TERRA COTTA CO. v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 73, KING COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 13, 1895

Appeal from superior court, King county; T. J. Humes, Judge.

Action by the Puget Sound Brick, Tile & Terra Cotta Company against school district No. 73, King county, Wash., to recover for materials furnished for the construction of a school building. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

A. G. McBride and S. H. Piles, for appellant.

Chas F. Fishback, for respondent.

HOYT C.J.

The appellant let a contract for the construction of a school building to one S.E. Clough, and took from him a bond with sureties, conditioned as follows: "The condition of the above obligation is such that whereas, said S.E. Clough has been awarded the contract to construct for said school district a brick school building to be built in said district according to the plans and specifications thereof made and prepared by A. L. Haley, arct., and in accordance with all details: Now, therefore, if said S.E. Clough shall faithfully, timely, and truly do and perform said work, and comply with said contract, plans, and specifications, to which reference is hereby made, and the same made a part of the bond, then the above obligation to be void; otherwise to remain in full force and virtue." The respondent furnished material to said contractor to be used, and which was used, in the erection of said building, and, not having been paid, brought this action to recover therefor of the appellant. There is substantial agreement between counsel that, if the bond in question was not one upon which an action could be maintained by one who had furnished materials to the contractor, the judgment of the lower court was right and should be affirmed. It is also practically conceded that such action could not be maintained upon the bond unless it came within the provisions of section 2415 of the General Statutes. The bond provided for in that section is one so conditioned as to require the contractor to pay all laborers, mechanics, and material men, and persons who shall supply such contractor with provisions or goods of any kind all just debts due to such persons, or to any person to whom any part of such work is given, incurred in carrying on said work; and the question presented for our decision is as to whether or not the conditions of the bond in question so far complied with...