Shoshoni Lumber Co. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland

• Decision Date: 29 August 1933
• Docket Number: 1801
• Parties: SHOSHONI LUMBER CO. v. FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. OF MARYLAND, ET AL
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

24 P.2d 690

46 Wyo. 241

SHOSHONI LUMBER CO. v. FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. OF MARYLAND, ET AL

No. 1801

Supreme Court of Wyoming

August 29, 1933

APPEAL from the District Court of Natrona County: C. D. MURANE Judge.

Action by the Shoshoni Lumber Company against the Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and named defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

For the defendant and appellant there was a brief by Kinkead &amp Pearson of Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Thomas A. Mapes of Denver Colorado, and oral argument by Mr. A. A. Pearson.

The petition and each of the causes of action thereof fails to state a cause of action against the Surety; the court erred in overruling defendant's demurrer to the second amended petition; the court erred in overruling defendant's motion for judgment and in giving judgment for plaintiff. The Statute (Sec. 95-202 R. S. 1931) relating to contractor's bonds gives a new right of action, and the limitations of the liability becomes a part of the right conferred and compliance with them is essential to recovery. U. S. ex rel Texas P. Cement Co. v. McCord, 58 Law Ed. 893, 897, 233 U.S. 157; U. S. for use etc., v. Boomer (C. C. A. 8) 183 F. 726; Stitzer v. U. S. (3 C. C. A.) 182 F. 513; Baker Const. Co. v. U.S. (C. C. A. 4) 204 F. 390; Eberhardt v. U.S. 204 F. 890; Atkinson v. Orr-Ault Const. Co., (Ohio) 177 N.E. 40. Liability is measured by the terms of the contract. Franzen v. So. Surety Co., 35 Wyo. 15. An allegation of breach of one of two contracts and bonds without designation of the breach complained of is insufficient to support recovery. Green v. Mich. Central Ry. Co. (Mich.) 133 N.W. 957; Cancellos v. Zotallis (Minn.) 177 N.E. 133; Seymour v. Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co. (Ia.) 164 N.W. 352; Neuman v. Grant (Mont.) 92 P. 43; Bechtel v. Chase (Cal.) 106 P. 81; U. S. F. & G. Co. v. Benson Co., (Ala.) 132 So. 622; Silver v. Hains, (La.) 115 So. 376; Larkins v. Blakeman, 42 Conn. 293; DeWolf v. Bonee, 101 A. 233. The service of notice of claims was insufficient to bind the surety. Section 95-204 R. S. 1931; Clinton v. Elder, 40 Wyo. 350, 277 P. 968; Conway v. Campbell, 38 Mo.App. 473; Westfall v. Farwell, 13 Wis. 504; Rhode Island Hospital Trust Co. v. Kenney (N. D.) 48 N.W. 341; Ensley v. State, 109 P. 250; Town of Casey v. Hogue, (Iowa) 214 N.W. 729; Boston Co. v. Barrett, (Mass.) 182 N.E. 603; People v. Road Co., 30 Cal. 182; Harris v. Inv. Co. (Cal.) 265 P. 306. Notice on the insurance commissioner by registered mail was insufficient. Atchison T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Sage, (Kan.) 31 P. 140; 46 C. J. 553, 555; Geneva v. Thompson (Iowa) 206 N.W. 133; Bank v. Bates (Iowa) 226 N.W. 140; People v. Fitzpatrick (Cal.) 76 P. 862; Sleeper v. Killion, 147 N.W. 314; Pilkington v. Potwin (Iowa) 144 N.W. 39; Iron Works v. Cas. Co. (Mass.) 175 N.E. 82. The respective causes of action are insufficient to support a judgment. Dillow v. City 124 N.W. 186; In re Mt. Pleasant Ave. 10 R. I. 320; Hollinger v. King (Pa.) 127 A. 462; Highway Dist. v. City (Ida.) 134 P. 542; Roche Valley Land Co. v. Berth (Mont.) 215 P. 654. The court erred in giving judgment on counts 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, which were never perfected by service of notice. Highway Comm. v. Const. Co. (Mo.) 86 S.W. 736; Miles v. Land Co. (Cal.) 33 Am. St. Rep. 168; Flemming v. Greener (Ind.) 87 N.E. 719; Dexter v. Sparkman (Wash.) 25 P. 1070; McKinley v. Tice (Ore.) 276 P. 1110; Ames v. Palmer, 42 Maine 197; Becker v. Hopper, 22 Wyo. 237; U. S. v. Rundle, 107 F. 227; Carter City v. Const. Co. (Tenn.) 228 S.W. 720; Nat. Market Co. v. Cas. Co. (Wash.) 174 P. 479. Claim Number 8 was unsupported by evidence. Many items for which recovery was allowed are not proper charges against the bond. Franzen v. So. Surety Co., supra. A bonding company is not liable for articles not consumed in the work under contract. Franzen v. Surety Company, supra. U. S. F. & G. Co. v. Yazoo Co. (Miss.) 110 So. 780; National Surety Co. v. Grocery Co. (Ariz.) 259 P. 404; Pickering Lumber Co. v. Fuller (Okla.) 244 P. 760; U. S. F. & G. Co. v. Benson Co. (Ala.) 132 So. 622. The judgment should be reversed with instructions to enter judgment for appellant.

For the plaintiff and respondent there was a brief and oral argument by Donald Spiker, of Riverton, Bryant S. Cromer of Casper, and A. H. Maxwell of Lander, Wyoming.

The pleadings are sufficient to sustain the judgment of the trial court; each bond affords a cause of action in itself and is separate and distinct from the other bond. Section 95-201-202-204-R. S. 1931. The Surety company is liable upon both bonds, and, as between it and claimants it is wholly immaterial whether it discharges that liability by payment under one bond, or the other, or both. Southern Surety Co. v. Ft. Lupton Merc. Co., 249 P. 263. Where the victim of a wrong appears to have inconsistent remedies and he is doubtful which is the right one, he may pursue any or all of them until he finally recovers through one. Section 89-1042 R. S. 1931; Steel Co. v. Sheller, 108 O. S. 106; 141, N.E. 89; Section 89-1004 R. S. 1931; Section 98-1005 R. S. 1931; 20 C. J. 6; 1 Bates 479; Bliss Code Pleading, Section 120; 5 Encyc. P. & P. 321; Edwards v. Hartshan (Kan.) 1 L. R. A. N. S. 1051; 21 R. C. L. 470; Carter Oil Company v. Carr, 174 P. 498; Williams v. Nelson, 145 P. 39; Astin v. Ry. Co. 128 N.W. 265, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 158; Raymond v. Bailey, 98 Conn. 201, 118 A. 915; Worth v. Dunn, 98 Conn. 51, 114 A. 467; Russell v. Clemmons, 196 Iowa 1121, 195 N.W. 1009; Staples v. Esary, 130 Wash. 66, 228 P. 514. The service of notice as required by Section 95-204 W. R. S. 1931 was sufficient.

Where a statute requires a notice to be served and nothing is said as to the mode of service, it must be personal. Clinton v. Elder, 40 Wyo. 350. Where a statute provides for the service of a notice, but does not prescribe the manner of its service, it is sufficient if actual notice to the person to be affected is conveyed to him. Clinton v. Elder, supra; Brost v. Whitall-Tatum Co. (N. J.) 99 A. 315. Such notice may be efficiently served in any form or by any method which in effect gives the written notice prescribed by statute. 46 C. J. 558; Fohling v. Goings, 67 N. J. E. 375, 58 A. 642; Lumber Co. v. Const. Co. 133 S.E. 133; Abbott v. United Rys. Co. 138 Mo.App. 530, 119 S.W. 964; Benson v. Barrett, 214 N.W. 47; Jones v. Balsley & Rogers, 106 P. 830; Paper Co. v. Perkins, 136 P. 324; Sykes v. Sperow, 179 P. 488; Davis v. Cas. Co. (Texas) 13 S.W.2d 981. The notices required by Section 95-204 R. S. 1931, and served by claimants are sufficient; the purpose of the notice is to inform the surety of the default on the part of its principal. National Surety Co. v. Holliday, 42 Wyo. 407, 25 C. J. 1102; Gamble-Robinson v. Co. 113 Miss 38, 129 N.W. 131. Substantial compliance with the statute is sufficient. Varnadore v. Novak, 41 Wyo. 494, 287 P. 438; So. Surety Co. v. Bank, 54 S.W.2d 888, 46 C. J. 553; Fletcher v. American Surety Co. 175 N.E. 247; Toole Co. v. Morse, 43 Utah 515, 136 P. 965, 46 C. J. 554; Bailey Lumber Co. v. General Const. Company 133 S.E. 135. The claims of the assignees of labor were properly allowed; claims under the bonds are not limited to items that would be lienable under Mechanics' Lien Laws, and liability under such bonds is not restricted to items which would be lienable under Mechanics' Lien Laws of this state. Franzen v. So. Surety Co. 35 Wyo. 15. Claims under the bonds not being governed by the law of Mechanics' Liens, are assignable. 29 C. J. 612; Columbia Co. v. Const. Co. 163 P. 438; So. Surety Co. v. Bank, 54 S.W.2d 888. The claim being assignable, the assignee can perfect the notice required by Section 95-204 R. S. 1931. Northwestern Bank v. Cas. Co. 161 P. 473; National Market Co. v. Cas. Co. 174 P. 479. The transfer of labor checks by endorsement was an equitable assignment of the rights of the payee to have their claims paid. National Market Co. v. Cas. Co. 170 P. 1009; 174 P. 479; Finch v. Enke, 222 N.W. 657; Leach v. Hill, 106 Iowa 171, 76 N.W. 667; in the Chelmsford, 34 F. 399. The evidence supports the claim of the Sunset Lumber Company. Record 411-468-635-640-647-648. The items for which claim is made in this action and which were allowed by the court are properly allowed and chargeable to this surety company under its bonds. Record 418-423-424; Franzen v. So. Surety Co. 35 Wyo. 15. The assignment of claims for suit were proper. Record 435; Section 95-204 R. S. 1931; Preston v. Central Cal. etc., Co. 104 P. 462; Maryland Cas. Co. v. Fowler, 63 A. L. R. 1375, 21 R. C. L. 975; 31 F.2d 881.

There was a brief as Amicus Curiae and oral argument by Mr. M. A Kline of Cheyenne, and one in reply to plaintiff and respondent Shoshoni Lumber Company, and M A. Kline, Amicus Curiae, by Kinkead & Pearson, and Thomas A. Mapes for defendant and appellant.

The authorities cited by appellant in support of its contention that the claim is personal to the one who furnished the material or performed the labor, and that the assignment of such a claim before the service of notice does not in any way assign the right to proceed against the bonding company, are cases arising under statutes relating to mechanic's liens with the exception of the case of Missouri State Highway Comm. v. Const. Co. 86 S.W. 736. The overwhelming weight of authority sustains the proposition that claims for labor and materials furnished to a contractor on public works are assignable and may be enforced by the assignees in an action against the surety on the contractor's bond. Bank v Globe Indemnity Co. (Mo.) 29 S.W.2d 743; Cas. Co. v. Philbrick (Wash.) 266 P. 142; Rachow v. Philbrick et al. (Wash.) 268 P. 876; Columbia Co. v. Cons. Contract Co. (Ore.) 163 P. 438; Southern Surety Co. v. Bank, 47 F.2d 93; Bank v....