Hoeppner Construction Company v. United States, 6312.
| Decision Date | 30 March 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 6312.,6312. |
| Parties | HOEPPNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Inc.; and Houston Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, a Texas corporation, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, for the use of E. L. MANGUM and A. E. Estes, Jr., doing business as United Painters & Decorators, a co-partnership, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Lowell White, Denver, Colo. (Walter A. Steele, Denver, Colo., was with him on the brief), for appellants.
Ira C. Rothgerber, Jr., Denver, Colo., and William E. Shade, Denver, Colo. (Rothgerber, Appel & Powers, Denver, Colo., were with them on the brief), for appellee.
Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and BRATTON and PICKETT, Circuit Judges.
This case arose under the Miller Act, 40 U.S.C.A. § 270a et seq. The United States awarded to Hoeppner Construction Company, hereinafter referred to as the prime contractor, a contract for the rehabilitation of thirty-five barracks at Lowry Air Force Base, located at Denver, Colorado; and Houston Fire & Casualty Company executed as surety the required payment bond. The prime contractor awarded to E. L. Mangum and A. C. Estes, doing business under the trade name United Painters & Decorators, hereinafter referred to as the subcontractor, a subcontract to furnish the materials and perform the labor necessary to do the painting required by the prime contract; and Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, hereinafter referred to as Aetna, executed as surety the performance bond given in connection with the subcontract. The amount to be paid the subcontractor was $40,000. The United States, for the use and benefit of the subcontractor, brought the action to recover from the prime contractor and the surety on the payment bond $14,756.59 alleged to be due the subcontractor. A balance of $9,520.55 due on the original contract price, and claims for extra material furnished and labor performed due to additions and changes made in the prime contract, were pleaded in the complaint and set forth in a document in the nature of a bill of particulars filed in the action. The prime contractor did not appear. The surety on the payment bond pleaded that the subcontractor was not the real party plaintiff in interest; pleaded that the prime contractor had made full payment of all sums due the subcontractor; pleaded that the claim was barred for failure of the subcontractor to file for record in Colorado a partnership affidavit as was required by the law of that state; and pleaded that the prime contractor had furnished materials and labor to the subcontractor which constituted an offset and counterclaim against the subcontractor. By counterclaim, judgment was sought in the sum of $19,051.05. The court found and determined in effect that the prime contractor and the surety on the payment bond were indebted to the subcontractor in the sum of $10,645.81, and that the subcontractor was indebted to the prime contractor in the sum of $2,091.37. Judgment was entered for the subcontractor against the surety on the payment bond for $8,554.44, with interest.
The judgment is challenged on the ground that the subcontractor failed to file for record in Colorado a partnership affidavit as required by the law of that state. It is provided by statute in Colorado that any partnership or association of persons doing business or carrying on any trade in the state under any other name than the personal name or names of his or its constituent members shall file for record with the clerk and recorder of a specified county an affidavit setting forth certain specified information. C.R.S.1953, § 141-2-1. And it is further provided by statute that in default of filing such affidavit, a partnership shall not be permitted to prosecute suits for the collection of debts until the affidavit has been filed. C.R.S. 1953, § 141-2-2. But the right to maintain this action does not have its source in the law of Colorado. The right to institute and maintain the action in the United States District Court is expressly granted by the Miller Act. 40 U.S.C.A. § 270b. And the statutes of Colorado requiring the filing of the affidavit and withholding the right to prosecute an action for the collection of a debt until the affidavit has been filed do not condition or otherwise proscribe in any manner the right of the United States to institute and maintain in the United States Court for the use and benefit of a subcontractor an action against the prime contractor and the surety on the payment bond to recover a balance due for materials furnished and labor performed in pursuance of the subcontract.
The substance of another ground of challenge to the judgment is that title to the claims asserted in the complaint was not vested in the subcontractor at the time of the commencement of the action or at any time thereafter. The argument is that the claims of the subcontractor against the prime contractor had been assigned to Aetna; that Aetna was the real party in interest respecting the ownership of such claims; and that, therefore, the action could not be maintained for the use and benefit of the subcontractor. The application for the performance bond submitted by the subcontractor to Aetna contained language which provided in effect that if the subcontractor should fail to pay bills incurred on the work when they became due and payable, or should fail to comply with the terms or conditions of the subcontract, all monies which were then due or should thereafter become due the subcontractor were by the application assigned and transferred to Aetna and should be by it credited upon any loss, damage, charge, and expense sustained or incurred by it under the bond. The subcontractor became indebted to The Glidden Company for materials furnished and labor performed in connection with the subcontract; and while the work under the subcontract was still in progress, the subcontractor executed a written instrument in which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United Pacific Ins. Co. v. Wyoming Excise Tax Div., Dept. of Revenue and Taxation
...Casualty & Surety Company v. United States ex rel. R.J. Studer & Sons, supra, 365 F.2d at 999; Hoeppner Construction Company v. United States ex rel. Mangum, 287 F.2d 108 (10th Cir.1960). Rather, the statute imposes a distinct obligation on the surety also to guarantee the state We conclude......
-
K-B Trucking Co. v. Riss Intern. Corp.
...Cir.1981); see also Audio-Visual Marketing Corp. v. Omni Corp., 545 F.2d 715, 718-19 (10th Cir.1976); Hoeppner Construction Co. v. United States, 287 F.2d 108, 111 (10th Cir.1961); cf. Harris v. Illinois-California Express, Inc., 687 F.2d 1361, 1373 (10th Cir.1982). "The forum state's proce......
-
In re O'Dell
...F.2d 250 (5th Cir.1980); Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co. v. Norris Grain Co., 343 F.2d 670 (8th Cir.1965); Hoeppner Const. Co. v. United States for Use of Mangum, 287 F.2d 108 (10th Cir.1960); Costanzo Coal Min. Co. v. Weirton Steel Co., 150 F.2d 929 (4th Cir.1945); Associated Press v. KVOS, Inc.......
-
Citizens Concerned for Separation of Church and State v. City and County of Denver
...in interest" is the one who, under applicable substantive law, has the legal right to bring the suit. See: Hoeppner Construction Company v. United States, 10 Cir., 287 F.2d 108. Accordingly, an administrator may bring the suit in his own name without joining the parties for whose benefit it......
-
Federal Miller Act Rights Trump State Statute Precluding Claims By Non-Licensed Contractors
...noted that the 10th Circuit, following F.D. Rich, previously concluded in Hoeppner Construction Co. v. United States ex rel. E.L. Mangum, 287 F.2d 108 (10th Cir. 1960), that state statutes cannot "condition the rights available to a subcontractor" under the Miller Act because state laws "do......