Thomas Laughlin Co. v. American Surety Co. of New York
| Decision Date | 16 April 1902 |
| Docket Number | 406,405,409,407,410.,408 |
| Citation | 114 F. 627 |
| Parties | THOMAS LAUGHLIN CO. v. AMERICAN SURETY CO. OF NEW YORK. BLAKE et al v. SAME. BOYD v. SAME. CLEAVES v. SAME. POST v. SAME. JOHNSON v. SAME. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Benjamin Thompson, for appellants.
Thomas L. Talbot (Henry C. Wilcox, on the brief), for appellee American Surety Co. of New York.
Harry R. Virgin (Franklin C. Payson, on the brief), for appellees Allen and Hutchinson.
Before COLT, Circuit Judge, and BROWN and LOWELL, District Judges.
Morgan contracted to build for the United States a battery on Diamond Island. The American Surety Company was the surety furnished upon his bond in accordance with chapter 280 of Acts 1894 (28 Stat. 278). Morgan broke his contract, having become indebted to a considerable number of persons while engaged upon the contract work. Some of these persons brought suits against the surety company under chapter 280. The surety company filed a bill in equity, ancillary to these suits, for the purpose of settling its liability both to the plaintiffs in the suits mentioned and to other creditors of Morgan, so far as these creditors should come in. The penal sum of the bond is probably insufficient to pay the statutory claims in full. The claims against the surety company thus arising under chapter 280 were referred to a master. Exceptions were taken to his report, and were dealt with by the circuit court. The appellants now seek to reverse the action of that court in dealing with certain claims.
The circuit court disallowed certain claims for labor, tools, and other supplies, and for the transportation of material to Diamond Island. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to decide if the statute of 1894 should be held to cover more than is covered by the ordinary lien statutes of the states. However this may be, we are of opinion that the labor and materials here in controversy are plainly without the purview of the statute. All the appeals except that taken by the Laughlin Company are thus disposed of.
That company has contended that the surety company is liable, over and above the penal sum of the bond, for interest thereon and for the costs of the suits brought against the surety company. A surety's liability does not ordinarily extend beyond the penal sum of the bond, unless he has in some way resisted or obstructed the recovery of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waddle v. Wilson
... ... C. Wilson against J. S. Waddle and the National Surety ... Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants ... Ass'n v. Obert, 169 ... Mo. 507, 69 S.W. 1044; American Surety Co. v. U. S., ... 123 F. 287, 59 C.C.A. 256; ... 32 Cyc. 121; ... Thomas Laughlin Co. v. American Surety Co., 114 F ... 627, 51 ... ...
-
London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America v. Smoot
... ... that appellant ... [287 F. 954] ... was surety on its bond, and the appellee furnished to said ... 157, 34 Sup.Ct ... 550, 58 L.Ed. 893; Miller v. American Bonding Co., ... 257 U.S. 304, 42 Sup.Ct. 98, 66 L.Ed ... v. New ... York Steam Fitting Co., 235 U.S. 327, 35 Sup.Ct. 108, 59 ... 653, ... 141 C.C.A. 409; Laughlin Co. v. American Surety Co., ... 114 F. 627, 51 C.C.A. 247; ... ...
-
City of Dickinson, a Municipal Corporation v. White
... ... Bank, 172 Mass. 363, 52 N.E. 387; National Surety ... Co. v. State Sav. Bank, 14 L.R.A.(N.S.) 155, 84 C. C ... v. Swain, 189 Pa. 626, 42 A ... 297; Thomas Laughlin Co. v. American Surety Co. 51 ... C.C.A. 247, ... ...
-
Clinton County to Use of Township 54, Range 30 v. Smith
... ... that the surety could rest assured that the real estate, as ... long as it ... Folz v. Trust Co., 201 Pa. 583, 51 A. 379; Thomas" ... Laughlin Co. v. Surety Co., 114 F. 627.] ... \xC2" ... ...