Hull v. The Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Company
| Decision Date | 06 January 1912 |
| Docket Number | 17,410 |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
| Parties | M. L. HULL et al., Doing Business Under the Firm Name and Style of M. L. Hull & Sons, Appellees, v. THE MASSACHUSETTS BONDING & INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant |
Decided January, 1912.
Appeal from Riley district court.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
1. ASSIGNEE OF ACCOUNT--No Beneficial Interest--May Sue. The rule followed that the assignee of an account may maintain action thereon, although the assignor is the party beneficially interested.
2. PUBLIC BUILDING--Contractor's Bond--Abandonment--Limitation of Actions. Under a statute requiring an officer contracting for the erection of a public building to take a bond from the contractor for the payment of indebtedness incurred for labor and material, and providing that no action shall be brought thereon after six months from the completion of the building, the abandonment of work upon such a building by the contractor is not to be regarded as its completion, so as to bar all actions not begun before six months from that time have elapsed, where the public officers use reasonable diligence in causing the work to be resumed and prosecuted by another contractor.
3. STATUS OF SURETIES--Bonds for Profit. The rule that sureties are favorites of the law does not apply to corporations engaged in the business of furnishing bonds for profit.
W. S McClintock, and A. L. Quant, for the appellant.
John E. Hessin, John Clarke Hessin, and W. A. S. Bird, for the appellees.
Prior to July 3, 1908, the Blanchard Construction Company entered into a contract with the board of regents of the Kansas State Agricultural College, for the erection of a mechanical engineering building. The contractor gave a bond guaranteeing the payment of all indebtedness incurred for labor and material in connection therewith. M. L. and B. R. Hull, as well as several other persons, performed labor and furnished material for the contractor, and were not paid. The others assigned their claims to the Hulls, who brought an action against the surety on the bond, the Massachusetts Bonding and Insurance Company, and recovered a judgment, from which an appeal is taken.
A reversal is asked upon two grounds: (1) that the plaintiffs were not the real parties in interest, inasmuch as the assignments were made to them without consideration and for the purpose of enabling them to maintain the action; and (2) that the action was barred because brought more than six months after the contractor had ceased to have anything to do with the building.
The defendant concedes that the first contention is in conflict with Rullman v. Rullman, 81 Kan. 521, 106 P. 52, and with other cases decided by this court, but it asks a reexamination of the question. The matter is one concerning which there has been much difference of opinion, but we are satisfied with the reasoning of the cases referred to, and adhere to the conclusion there reached.
The statute (Civ. Code, §§ 661, 662), in accordance with which the bond was given, requires that whenever any public officer shall enter into a contract for the construction of a public building, he shall take from the contractor a bond for the payment of all indebtedness incurred for labor or material; it authorizes any one to whom any sum is due for labor or material to sue upon the bond, but provides that no action shall be brought thereon after six months from the completion of the building.
The defendant did not demur to the petition, but objected to the introduction of evidence on the ground that no cause of action was stated. It contends that the statute gives a right to sue only where action is brought before six months has expired after the completion of the building, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. American Surety Co. of New York
... ... AMERICAN SURETY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Appellant Supreme Court of Idaho December 31, ... held liable. ( Umbreit v. American Bonding Co., 144 ... Wis. 611, 129 N.W. 789; Western Assurance ... U.S. 133, 18 S.Ct. 552, 42 L.Ed. 977; Hull v ... Massachusetts etc. Ins. Co., 86 Kan. 342, 120 P ... ...
-
National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania v. F.D.I.C.
...423, 426, 24 S.Ct. pp. 143, 144.) "Whatever may be the rule elsewhere, the latter rule is well settled in this state. (See Hull v. Bonding Co., 86 Kan. 342, 120 P. 544; Medical Co. v. Hamm, 89 Kan. 138, 130 P. 650; Lumber Co. v. Douglas, 89 Kan. 308, 131 P. 563; The State v. Construction Co......
-
State of Kansas ex rel. and to Use of Winkle Terra Cotta Co. v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co.
... ... Kansas at Relation and to Use of Winkle Terra Cotta Company v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, Appellant ... actual completion of the building. Hull v. Mass. Bonding ... Co., 86 Kan. 342; Dickey v. U.S. F. & ... ...
-
State of Kansas ex rel. v. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
...months limitation provided in the Kansas Statute (60-1414, R.S. Kan. 1923) runs from the actual completion of the building. Hull v. Mass. Bonding Co., 86 Kan. 342; Dickey v. U.S.F. & G. Co., 107 Kan. 605. (5) The full-faith-and-credit clause of the United States Constitution (Art. IV, Sec. ......