New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Texas Industries, Inc.
| Decision Date | 26 April 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. B--20,B--20 |
| Parties | NEW AMSTERDAM CASUALTY COMPANY v. TEXAS INDUSTRIES, INC., d/b/a Texcrete Structural Products Co. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Brundridge, Fountain, Elliott & Churchill, L. E. Elliott, Dallas, for petitioner.
DeVore, Ashworth & McGahey, Philip C. McGahey, Arlington, for respondent.
This is a summary judgment proceeding. Respondent furnished materials used by the contractor in the construction of certain public works at Love Field Airport of the City of Dallas. Its claim therefor being unpaid, Respondent sued Clarence H. Everett & Co. Inc., the contractor to whom the materials were furnished, and Petitioner, the surety for the contractor on the payment bond executed pursuant to Article 5160, 1 commonly known as the McGregor Act. The trial court entered a joint and several summary judgment against the contractor and surety for the principal sum of $182,919.41, for interest at six per cent per annum on the principal sum, and for attorney's fees in the sum of $19,773.62. The payment bond contained no provision for attorney's fees in event of suit and this appeal is limited to the judgment item awarding attorney's fees against Petitioner as surety on the bond. The Court of Civil Appeals upheld the recoverability of attorney's fees against the surety but reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the cause for the sole purpose of factually determining the amount of reasonable attorney's fees to be allowed Respondent. 408 S.W.2d 733. We hold that attorney's fees are not recoverable against Petitioner as the surety on the payment bond.
In Mundy v. Knutson Construction Co., 156 Tex. 211, 294 S.W.2d 371 (1956) we reaffirmed the rule previously recognized as settled law in Wm. Cameron & Co. Inc. v. American Surety Co., 55 S.W.2d 1032 (Tex.Com.App.1932) that attorney's fees are not recoverable either in an action in tort or a suit upon a contract unless provided by statute or by contract between the parties. See also Van Zandt v. Fort Worth Press, 359 S.W.2d 893 (Tex.Sup.1962), and cases there cited, stating the rule that statutory provisions for the recovery of attorney's fees are in derogation of the common law, are penal in nature and must be strictly construed. In Mundy we found the requisite contractual provision in the broad language of a surety bond requiring the payment of 'all costs and expenses' which might be incurred in the prosecution of a suit for a breach of the construction contract or on the surety bond itself. But no comparable provision is contained in the payment bond upon which this suit is based, 2 and it is not contended by Respondent that authority for recovery of attorney's fees may be found in the contract between the parties.
The McGregor Act itself, Article 5160, does not provide for the recovery of attorney's fees in event of suit against the principal and surety on the payment bond. This is in contrast to explicit provisions for the recovery of attorney's fees in the somewhat related lien bond statutes, Articles 5472b--1, 5472c, 4a and Article 5472d, subd. 6. Moroever, the bond required by Article 5160 is to be 'in the amount of the contract' and the suit authorized by the statute is 'for the amount due on the balance thereof unpaid at the time of filing the claim or of the institution of the suit.' 3 So, as Respondent recognizes in its brief, the question resolves to whether attorney's fees are recoverable against the surety under the general attorney's fees statute, Article 2226, which provides:
'Any person having a valid claim against a person or corporation for personal services rendered, labor done, material furnished, * * * may present the same to such person or corporation or to any duly authorized agent thereof; and if, at the expiration of thirty (30) days thereafter, the claim has not been paid or satisfied, and he should finally obtain judgment for any amount thereof as presented for payment to such person or corporation, he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bank One, Texas, N.A. v. Taylor
...a party is permitted to recover attorney's fees only if they are authorized by contract or by statute. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Texas Indus., Inc., 414 S.W.2d 914, 915 (Tex.1967); 4M Linen & Uniform Supply Co., Inc. v. W.P. Ballard & Co., Inc., 793 S.W.2d 320, 327 (Tex.App.--Houston [1......
-
Hill v. Heritage Resources, Inc.
...by statute or contract. Dallas Cent. Appraisal Dist. v. Seven Invest. Co., 835 S.W.2d 75, 77 (Tex.1992); New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Texas Indus., Inc., 414 S.W.2d 914, 915 (Tex.1967). Additionally, if a case involves more than one claim, then only those fees attributable to the claim falling......
-
Fairfield Ins. v. Stephens Martin Paving
...and all other nonpecuniary losses of any kind other than exemplary damages.") (emphasis added); see also New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Tex. Indus. Inc., 414 S.W.2d 914, 915 (Tex. 1967) (restating "the rule that statutory provisions for the recovery of attorney's fees are in derogation of the co......
-
Dalisa, Inc. v. Bradford
...(emphasis added) (citing Dallas Cent. Appraisal Dist. v. Seven Inv. Co., 835 S.W.2d 75, 77 (Tex.1992); New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Texas Indus., 414 S.W.2d 914, 915 (Tex.1967)). However, I believe that our jurisprudence provides an exception to the general independent-cause-of-action rule, wh......
-
Discrimination claims under labor code chapter 451
...1992) (same); First City Bank-Farmers Branch v. Guex , 677 S.W.2d 25, 30 (Tex. 1984); New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Texas Indus., Inc. , 414 S.W.2d 914, 915 (Tex. 1967)) (same). Chapter 451 does not provide for attorneys’ fees, and the parties in Holland did not have an agreement authorizing re......
-
Discrimination Claims Under Labor Code Chapter 451
...1992) (same); First City Bank-Farmers Branch v. Guex , 677 S.W.2d 25, 30 (Tex. 1984); New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Texas Indus., Inc. , 414 S.W.2d 914, 915 (Tex. 1967)) (same). Chapter 451 does not provide for attorneys’ fees, and the parties in Holland did not have an agreement authorizing re......
-
Discrimination Claims Under Labor Code Chapter 451
...1992) (same); First City Bank-Farmers Branch v. Guex , 677 S.W.2d 25, 30 (Tex. 1984); New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Texas Indus., Inc. , 414 S.W.2d 914, 915 (Tex. 1967)) (same). Chapter 451 does not provide for attorneys’ fees, and the parties in Holland did not have an agreement authorizing re......
-
Discrimination Claims Under Labor Code Chapter 451
...1992) (same); First City Bank-Farmers Branch v. Guex , 677 S.W.2d 25, 30 (Tex. 1984); New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Texas Indus., Inc. , 414 S.W.2d 914, 915 (Tex. 1967)) (same). Chapter 451 does not provide for attorneys’ fees, and the parties in Holland did not have an agreement authorizing re......