Pierce Contractors, Inc. v. Peerless Casualty Co.
Citation | 81 So.2d 747 |
Parties | PIERCE CONTRACTORS, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. PEERLESS CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellees. |
Decision Date | 27 July 1955 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Marx M. Faber, Miami, for appellant.
Blackwell, Walker & Cray, Miami, for appellee.
Appellant, as plaintiff, sued Conn Structors and Peerless Casualty Company in the Circuit Court, Dade County, to recover for amounts due on a construction contract. The complaint shows that Conn Structors was the general contractor who agreed to construct certain installations at the Charleston Air Base and that Peerless Casualty Company executed a surety bond agreeing to pay all bills for labor and material which might be furnished for the project and that they had not been paid for. Appellant was a sub-contractor of Conn Structors. Peerless Casualty Company moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the surety bond was posted under the Miller Act, Title 40 U.S.C.A. § 270a, which lodged sole jurisdiction of suits thereunder in the United States District Court in the district where the contract was to be performed and being so suit could be brought only in the Eastern District of South Carolina. The motion to dismiss was granted as to Peerless Casualty Company for want of jurisdiction. Pierce Contractors, Inc., a Florida corporation, appealed.
The point for determination is whether or not the sub-contractor of the general contractor must comply with the jurisdictional provisions of the Miller Act and bring suit in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of South Carolina where the bond was made and the contract was to be performed.
Appellant contends that this is not an action on the bond under the Miller Act but that it is a complaint for breach of a contract. It is shown, however, that Peerless Casualty Company 'executed a bond as guarantee that the general contractor would pay all bills for labor and material' and being so the bond given under the Miller Act is relied on for recovery in the suit brought in Dade County.
We do not think there is any merit to this contention. The jurisdictional provision of the Miller Act is as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United Pacific Ins. Co. v. Wyoming Excise Tax Div., Dept. of Revenue and Taxation
...Inc. v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company, La.App., 292 So.2d 806, 807 (1974); Pierce Contractors, Inc. v. Peerless Casualty Company, Fla., 81 So.2d 747, 749 (1955). The Wyoming taxing scheme provides for sales tax ( § 39-6-401 et seq.) and the comparable-use tax ( § 39-......
-
Koppers Company v. Continental Casualty Company
...apparently have consistently refused to assume jurisdiction over Miller bond suits. See, for example, Pierce Contractors, Inc., v. Peerless Cas. Co., Fla., 81 So.2d 747 (1955); Gardner v. Roberts-Nash Constr. Corp., 104 N.Y. S.2d 657 (Sup.Ct.1951). Irrespective of the venue or jurisdictiona......
-
United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Hendry Corporation
...as defendant in the first place. The state court would have no jurisdiction to consider the case. Thus, in Pierce Contractors, Inc. v. Peerless Casualty Co., Fla.1955, 81 So.2d 747, the contention was made, as it is made in this case, that the suit was not an action on the bond under the Mi......
-
Ireland's Lumber Yard v. Progressive Contractors, Inc.
... ... Defendant, and ... Continental Casualty Company, a foreign corporation, ... Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York, a ... foreign ... Milgram Contracting Co., 272 Wis. 366, 75 N.W.2d 305; Pierce Contractors, Inc. v. Peerless Casualty Co. (Fla.), 81 So.2d 747; and Gardner v. Roberts-Nash ... ...