Miller v. American Bonding Co
| Decision Date | 12 December 1921 |
| Docket Number | No. 59,59 |
| Citation | 66 L.Ed. 250,42 S.Ct. 98,257 U.S. 304 |
| Parties | MILLER v. AMERICAN BONDING CO |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. James G. Glessner, of York, Pa., for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Francis B. Bracken, of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant in error.
The American Bonding Company was the surety in a bond given to the United States to secure the performance of a contract to construct a public building, at York, Pa., and the prompt payment of claims for labor and material supplied to the contractor in the prosecution of the work. The building was completed and a final settlement as between the contractor and the United States was had. No action on the bond was begun by the United States in its own behalf; but an action thereon in the name of the United States was seasonably brought by Caesar Francini for his use and benefit. He claimed that he had supplied some of the labor and material and had not been paid. In due time others making similar claims intervened in the action for the purpose of presenting their claims, having them adjudicated and realizing on the bond. C. E. Miller was one of the claimants who intervened.
The bonding company interposed affidavits of defense to all the claims, and after issue was thus joined the action was set for trial at a stated session of the court, and all the parties were notified. At the appointed session a trial was had, before the court and a jury, in which all the claimants other than Miller participated. Although represented by counsel who was present when the trial was begun, Miller neither asked a continuance nor requested a separate trial, and yet 'without apparent reason or excuse' he refused and neglected to submit his claim for adjudication at that time. The jury returned a verdict for each of the other claimants, and a judgment giving effect to the verdict was entered, the aggregate of the claims included in the judgment being less than the amount of the bond. The surety sought a review in the Circuit Court of Appeals, and that court affirmed the judgment as to all the claims, but one, and as to it reversed the judgment, with a direction for a new trial. American Bonding Co. v. U. S., 233 Fed. 364, 147 C. C. A. 300. That claim was then compromised and settled, so the new trial was not had.
Shortly after the trial and verdict Miller caused the case to be put on the trial list for a separate trial of his claim. The bonding company promptly challenged his right to do this, but consented that, if a new trial of the other claims should be ordered and had, his claim might be submitted with the others on the retrial. The court then directed that the case be left off the trial list pending the review in the Circuit Court of Appeals. That review, as we have seen, did not result in a new trial of the other claims, or any of them. More than two years after the review Miller again caused the case to be put on the trial list, and the court, on the bonding company's motion, struck it from the list. The court did this on the ground that the case had been theretofore set for trial and tried, that on that trial Miller had been afforded and had rejected an opportunity to establish his claim, and that he was not entitled to another opportunity to establish it. U. S. v. Welles (D. C.) 256 Fed. 545. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision, Miller v. American Bonding Co., 262 Fed. 103, and Miller sued out the present writ of error.
Whether the court erred in denying Miller another opportunity to establish his claim, and thereby in effect dismissing it, is the question for decision. He particularly insists that he was entitled as of right to a separate trial, and was not required to participate with other claimants in a common trial.
The bond was given, and the action was brought,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe v. Knights of Columbus
...257 F. Supp. 619, 622 (S.D.N.Y. 1965). Because "the general practice is to try all the issues in a case at one time," Miller v. Am. Bonding Co., 257 U.S. 304, 307 (1921), bifurcation is the exception and "not the rule," Svege v. Mercedes-Benz Credit Corp., 329 F. Supp.2d 283, 284 (D. Conn. ......
-
Fleischmann Const Co v. United States Forsberg, 50
...States alone has the right to commence an action. Texas Cement Co. v. McCord, supra, 163 (34 S. Ct. 550); Miller v. Bonding Co., 42 S. Ct. 98, 257 U. S. 304, 307, 66 L. Ed. 250. And if a suit is then instituted by a creditor or creditors, 'only one action shall be brought,' and all shall fi......
-
Doe v. Knights of Columbus
...619, 622 (S.D.N.Y.1965). Because “the general practice is to try all the issues in a case at one time,” Miller v. Am. Bonding Co., 257 U.S. 304, 307, 42 S.Ct. 98, 66 L.Ed. 250 (1921), bifurcationis the exception and “not the rule,” Svege v. Mercedes–Benz Credit Corp., 329 F.Supp.2d 283, 284......
-
Jeanty v. County of Orange
...Bridge and Tunnel Auth., No. 97 Civ. 0607, 2000 WL 423517, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. April 19, 2000) (quoting Miller v. Am. Bonding Co., 257 U.S. 304, 307, 42 S.Ct. 98, 66 L.Ed. 250 (1921))). Defendants contend that severance of the excessive force claims against the individual defendants from the po......
-
Pre-Trial Procedures and Documents
...that distinct causes of action asserted in the same case may be made the subjects of separate trials.” Miller v. Am. Bonding Co. , 257 U.S. 304, 307 (1921). C. Case Examples [§9:147] 1. Class Actions / Multiple Plaintiffs [§9:148] In the employment context, motions to sever are usually brou......
-
The Construction Industry in the U.S. Supreme Court:Part 2, Beyond Contract Law
...v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 208 U.S. 404 (1908) (recognizing the surety’s subrogation rights). 22. See, e.g. , Miller v. Am. Bonding Co., 257 U.S. 304 (1921); Ex parte Sw. Sur. Ins. Co., 247 U.S. 19 (1918). 23. Fleisher Eng’g & Constr. Co. v. U.S. ex rel. Hallenbeck, 311 U.S. 15, 17 (1940). 2......