State ex rel. Hagquist v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co.
Decision Date | 27 March 1928 |
Citation | 265 P. 775,125 Or. 13 |
Parties | STATE EX REL. HAGQUIST v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO. ET AL. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Coos County; John C. Kendall, Judge.
Action by the State, on the relation of William Hagquist, against the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company and another. From a judgment for the defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
This is an action brought by the state on the relation of the use plaintiff, William Hagquist, to recover upon a bond given by the defendant United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, a corporation, surety company, to secure the faithful performance by the Scandia Shipbuilding Company of a contract entered into by said company and the state of Oregon acting by and through the state highway commission for the construction of a section of a state highway known as the Pacific Highway, said section being designated as the "Halsey-Harrisburg section of the Pacific Highway in Linn county." The work on this section is referred to in the pleadings as Job No. 15 so as to distinguish it from another contract by the same company designated as Job No 14. Hereinafter the defendant contracting company will be designated as the Scandia Company and the defendant bonding company as the surety company.
The bond is as follows:
The Scandia Company failed to pay many of its bills for materials and supplies, and the surety company was compelled, by reason of such failure, to pay them. During the progress of the work, the Scandia Company borrowed various sums of money from banks, not necessary to be mentioned here; and on November 20, 1922, presumably to assist the Scandia Company in its operations, William Hagquist, Conrad Hagquist, John Hillstrom, and Otto Edlund, stockholders in the Scandia Company, each borrowed $5,000 from the First National Bank of South Bend each giving his promissory note for said sum with approved surety; said notes being payable on demand, with 8 per cent. interest from date until paid. These notes were treated as cash deposited to the credit of each stockholder in his own name, and each thereafter drew his check in favor of the Scandia Company for $5,000, which sum was deposited in the bank to the credit of the Scandia Company, which already had a deposit of $2,258.04, making its total credit at the bank at the close of this transaction $22,258.04, which sum was all checked out and used by the company in its various operations, leaving it still a debtor for claims for material and supplies, and a debtor to the relator, William Hagquist, and Conrad Hagquist, John Hillstrom, and Otto Edlund in the sum of $5,000 each. All these claims were, after the default of the Scandia Company, assigned to the relator, who, in the name of the state, brings this action stated in four separate causes identical except as to the names of the assignors. Before assignment, the relator and each of the assignors gave notice as required by section 2991, Or. L., which notice is in all respects in the form required by said section, where material, labor, or supplies are furnished; and, if money loaned a contractor and used by him for the purpose of performing the work is to be deemed labor, material, or supplies, is sufficient in substance to authorize the claimant to bring action on the bond given by the surety company. That part of the notice which is of special importance here is as follows:
The complaint, which is too lengthy to be included here, states all the facts covered by the notice. If money loaned to a contractor, for the purpose of fulfilling his contract, is to be held to be material or labor or supplies, or if the phrase "and all just debts, dues, and demands incurred in the performance of such work" is to be construed as including money loaned to a contractor, and by him used to pay for labor, material, or provisions, and is to be construed as within the meaning and intent of the bond to the extent that the state is required by the statute to sue on the bond for the benefit of the person loaning the money, then the complaint is sufficient to cover such contention.
The defendant surety company answered, denying substantially the allegations of the complaint. This case was set down for trial, being consolidated, for that purpose with two other cases of a similar character. When the cases, as consolidated, came on for trial, the defendant surety company demurred on the ground that the complaint...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
West LINN Corp.ORATE PARK v. CITY of West LINN, USCA 05-53061
...actions outside the scope of that power are “extra statutory” and therefore ultra vires. See, e.g., State v. United States F. & G. Co. et al., 125 Or. 13, 24-25, 265 P. 775 (1928) (so applying to the context of state highway commission). However, where a city has broad power to act, but is ......
-
DeLong Corporation v. Oregon State Highway Com'n
...claimed on behalf of the state. The Highway Commission is a state board of special and limited powers. State ex rel. Hagquist v. United States F. & G. Co., 125 Or. 13, 265 P. 775 (1928). Other Oregon cases, such as Butterfield v. State Industrial Accident Comm'n, 111 Or. 149, 223 P. 941, 22......
-
McGrath v. Nolan
...Indemnity Co., 56 App.D.C. 76, 10 F.(2d) 641, 642; Moody v. MeGee (C.C.A.) 41 F.(2d) 515; State ex rel. Hagquist v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 125 Or. 13, 21, 265 P. 775. We conclude that the exceptions of respondent Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland were properly The appel......
-
United Contracting Co. v. Duby
... ... ET AL. v. DUBY ET AL., STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION. Supreme Court of Oregon ... unnecessary for us to express ourselves upon the latter. We ... In ... State ex rel. v. State Board of Control, 85 W.Va ... ...