Hardaway & Prowell v. National Sur. Co.
Decision Date | 19 January 1907 |
Docket Number | 1,584. |
Citation | 150 F. 465 |
Parties | HARDAWAY & PROWELL v. NATIONAL SURETY CO. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
On Rehearing, March 9, 1907.
John B Baskin, for appellant.
Henry Fitts, for appellee.
Before LURTON, SEVERENS, and RICHARDS, Circuit Judges.
This appeal involves only the liability of the National Surety Company, as surety upon a government contractor's bond made in pursuance of the act of Congress of August 13, 1894 (28 Stat. 278, c. 280, Sec. 1 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p 2523)), to the appellants, Hardaway & Prowell, who claim to have supplied the contractors and principal obligors in the bond with labor and material. The only facts necessary to be stated are these: The firm of Willard & Cornwell, composed of James E. Willard, Charles L. Cornwell, and Joseph Coyne contracted on October 5, 1899, with the government for the construction of lock and dam No. 4, Black Warrior river, Ala. This contract involved the supplying of a large amount of materials and labor, and the contractors were required to execute a bond in the penal sum of $50,000, conditioned, first, that the contractors would perform their contract according to its true intent and meaning; and, second, that 'they would make full payments to all persons supplying them labor or materials in the prosecution of the work provided for in said contract. ' They executed this bond with the National Surety Company as surety. The contractors prosecuted the work as a firm for a year or more, and then, for reasons not necessary to be stated, Willard and Cornwell assigned their interests in the contract to their associate, Joseph Coyne, who agreed to assume all debts of the firm and prosecute the work at his own risk and for his own benefit. As between the partners, we see no valid objection to this agreement. It could not affect the United States, and was never intended to substitute Coyne for Willard, Cornwell and Coyne, and was effective only as an assumption by one of the firm of the debts of the firm in consideration of the receipt of the benefits to be derived from the execution of the agreement. Burck v. Taylor, 152 U.S. 634, 14 Sup.Ct. 696, 38 L.Ed. 578, and Prairie Bank v. U.S., 164 U.S. 227, 17 Sup.Ct. 142, 41 L.Ed. 412. Coyne went on with the contract, but at last found himself unable to complete the work. In this situation he entered into a contract for the completion of the work with the appellants, Hardaway & Prowell. As the legal right of Hardaway & Prowell to look to the bond originally given by Willard & Cornwell with the appellee, the National Surety Company, as surety, for their protection, depends upon the true intent and meaning of this contract. It is here set out in full:
aid and on account of the disorganization of his labor forces and for various and sundry other reasons, complete and finish the said work in accordance with the said contract, and whereas said contract is a valued asset to the said Joseph Coyne, if the said work can be prosecuted to its completion under the terms of said contract, there being held in reserve by the government under the terms of said contract about $8,300.00, which has already been earned by said Coyne, and whereas by reason of his said inability to finish said work the said contract is about to be forfeited, and the said Coyne is in imminent danger of losing, not only what profits may be made upon the completion of the work, but the entire reserve fund also retained by the government, and whereas the said Joseph Coyne for the purpose of preventing the forfeiture of said contract, has made overtures to the said Hardaway & Prowell to take up said work and complete it, and the said Hardaway & Prowell have agreed to do so upon the terms and stipulations hereinafter set forth. Now, therefore:
have to pay in order to effect a settlement with the government and acceptance by it of said lock and dam.
Storms freshets, and overflows, as claimed by the appellants, added to the cost of completing the unfinished lock and dam,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. First Nat. Bank
...v. Jackson County Bank (C. C. A.) 20 F. (2d) 644; Hardaway v. National Surety Co., 211 U.S. 552, 29 S.Ct. 202, 53 L.Ed. 321; Id. (C. C. A.) 150 F. 465; Prairie State Nat. Bank v. United States, 164 227, 17 S.Ct. 142, 41 L.Ed. 412; Illinois Surety Co. v. City of Galion (D. C.) 211 F. 161; Un......
-
Franzen v. Southern Surety Co.
...v. Shaw, 38 A. 724; Electric Co. v. Springfield Co., 86 N.E. 248. Money loaned is not a claim; Cadenasso v. Antonelle, supra; Hardaway v. Surety Co. 150 F. 465; drayage is not included; Alpena v. Murray Co., 159 Mich. 336; 123 N.W. 1128. In Gibbs v. Tally, 65 P. 970, a similar statute in Ca......
-
Pratt Lumber Co., Inc. v. T.H. Gill Co.
... ... Baker, of New ... York City, for National Surety Co ... CONNOR, ... District Judge ... This ... laborers and materialmen. Hardaway & Prowell v. National ... Surety Co. (C.C.A. 6th Cir.) 150 F. 465, 80 ... ...
-
Gary Hay & Grain Co. v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md.
...§ 1122, p. 335; Whittaker v. United States F. & G. Co. (D. C.) 300 F. 129;Hardaway & Prowell Co. v. National Surety Co. (C. C. A.) 150 F. 465;Evans & Howard Co. v. National Surety Co., 42 S. D. 109, 173 N. W. 448;Blyth-Fargo Co. v. Free, 46 Utah, 233, 148 P. 427. It is, therefore, apparent ......