American Surety Co. v. Scott
Decision Date | 27 March 1933 |
Docket Number | No. 733.,733. |
Citation | 63 F.2d 961 |
Parties | AMERICAN SURETY CO. OF NEW YORK v. SCOTT et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Walter E. Schwed, of Denver, Colo. (Edgar McComb and Milton D. Green, both of Denver, Colo., on the brief), for appellant.
Geo. E. McConley, Jr., and Raymond L. Sauter, both of Sterling, Colo. (Raymond M. Sandhouse, of Sterling, Colo., on the brief), for appellees.
Before LEWIS, PHILLIPS, and McDERMOTT, Circuit Judges.
On July 6, 1928, H. L. Scott and Guy Curlee entered into a construction contract with the State of Wyoming for the doing of certain grading and other work on Federal Aid Road Project No. 162-A.
On August 3, 1928, the Construction Company as principal and the American Surety Company as surety, executed and delivered to Scott and Curlee an indemnity bond in the sum of $10,000 conditioned for the faithful performance of such subcontract, subject to the following conditions, among others, which by the express terms of the bonds were made conditions precedent to any right to recover thereon.
The Construction Company commenced work under such subcontract on August 10, 1928, and suspended work thereunder on November 28, 1928, due to inclement weather conditions.
Section 19 of Division 1 of Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction of the Highway Department of the State of Wyoming, defines a working day as follows:
Between August 10 and November 28, 1928, there were fifteen Sundays and two holidays. During that period there were ten days when it was impossible to do any work due to adverse weather conditions. It follows that the Construction Company had used only ninety working days when it suspended work on the project.
Scott and Curlee promptly paid all bills for expenses incurred by the Construction Company in carrying out such subcontract that were approved by the latter and turned over to Scott and Curlee. Certain bills for expenses incurred by the Construction Company were filed with the state, which the Construction Company had failed to turn over to Scott and Curlee. The latter first learned of such unpaid bills about December 20, and paid them on February 20, 1929.
On January 21, 1929, the Construction Company notified Scott and Curlee that it would not further perform the subcontract, and repudiated such contract.
Scott and Curlee gave written notice to the Surety Company on January 30, 1929, that the Construction Company had breached such subcontract by abandoning the work and refusing to complete the subcontract.
The Construction Company moved 37,700 yards of earth under the subcontract. Scott and Curlee advanced, for expenses incurred by the Construction Company, $10,959.80 by the payment of bills approved and turned over to the Construction Company, $4,230.02 by the payment of bills filed with the State of Wyoming, and $4,593.88 by deductions made by the state from moneys due Scott and Curlee on account of bills of the Construction Company filed with the state. Under its contract, Scott and Curlee were to receive 40 cents a cubic yard for moving the earth which the Construction Company had agreed to move under its subcontract. After the Construction Company had abandoned its subcontract, and when weather conditions permitted a resumption of work on the project, Scott and Curlee were unable to secure men and teams in sufficient numbers to satisfy the state, and on that account the state canceled its contract. The official estimate of the State Engineer, after the completion of the road, allowed 74,463.4 cubic yards of earth excavation. Had the Construction Company completed its subcontract, Scott and Curlee would have received 40 cents a cubic yard for 36,763.4 cubic yards of earth, or $14,705.36.
Scott and Curlee as principal and the Federal Surety Company as surety gave a bond to the State of Wyoming conditioned for the faithful performance of the principal contract. In its application for such bond, Scott and Curlee assigned to the Federal Surety Company all its right in and under all subcontracts, including the one involved in the instant case.
Scott and Curlee brought this action against the Surety Company and the Construction Company for recovery upon the indemnity bond. Scott and Curlee introduced evidence establishing the facts hereinbefore stated. At the close of the plaintiff's case in chief, the Surety Company moved to strike the testimony of Curlee as to the amount of earth moved by the Construction Company, as to the number of working days consumed on the project by the Construction Company up to November 28, 1928, and as to the final amount of yardage of earth moved in completing the contract, on the ground that the same was secondary evidence. This evidence was not challenged by objection or motion to strike at the time it was introduced. The court overruled this motion.
Thereupon the Surety Company moved for a non-suit against Scott and Curlee on the ground that the evidence affirmatively showed that Scott and Curlee was not the real party in interest, that it had breached the subcontract, and that it had failed to comply with the condition of the bond with respect to notice. The court overruled this motion,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gonns v. United States, 5254.
...48 L.Ed. 805; Loew Filter Co. v. German-American Filter Co., 6 Cir., 164 F. 855; Simmons v. Stern, 8 Cir., 9 F.2d 256; American Surety Co. v. Scott, 10 Cir., 63 F.2d 961; Wright v. Roseberry, 81 Cal. 87, 22 P. 336; In re Aguirre's Estate, 57 Nev. 275, 284, 62 P.2d 1107, 65 P.2d 685; Priestl......
-
Houy v. Davis Oil Co., 23450
...breach as a discharge of his contractual obligations. See Fitzwater v. Norcross, 95 Colo. 527, 37 P.2d 522 (1934); American Surety Co. v. Scott, 63 F.2d 961 (10th Cir. 1933); Mound Mines Co. v. Hawthorne, 173 F. 882 (8th Cir. 1909); Bettes v. Mid-Texas Petroleum Co., 243 S.W. 753 (Tex.Civ.A......
-
Sterling Lumber Co. v. Thompson, 1862
...... favor of the interveners against the plaintiff and its surety. on the replevin bond, the plaintiff appeals. . . . ... property upon its indemnity agreement with Scott and Curlee,. made at the time it executed a bond as surety for the. ... the same legal principles. American Surety Company vs. Scott and Curlee, 63 F.2d 961; Massachusetts ......
-
Wicoma Inv. Co. v. Pridgeon
......1057, Sec. 63. . . See. also in this connection American Surety Co. v. Scott, 10 Cir., 63 F.2d 961; Mobile & O. R. Co. v. ......