Title Guaranty Surety Company v. United States
| Decision Date | 12 May 1913 |
| Docket Number | No. 530,530 |
| Citation | 57 L.Ed. 969,228 U.S. 567,33 S.Ct. 614 |
| Parties | TITLE GUARANTY & SURETY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. UNITED STATES, to the Use of Harlan & Hollingsworth |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Russell H. Robbins for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 568-570 intentionally omitted] Messrs. G. W. Pepper and Thomas Stokes for defendant in error.
This is an action upon a contractor's bond executed on May 24, 1904, under the provisions of the act of Congress of August 13, 1894, chap. 280, 28 Stat. at L. 278, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 2523, entitled, 'An Act for the Protection of Persons Furnishing Materials and Labor for the Construction of Public Works.' The question for decision is whether the court below had jurisdiction of the cause.
The bond was executed by the surety company in connection with a contract entered into by the Scofield Company with the United States for the erection of a dry dock at the League Island navy yard. The Harlan & Hollingsworth corporation took over a subcontract and constructed a caisson for the dock. To recover a balance owing, the corporation resorted to its remedy on the bond. The bond and various contracts were made prior to 1905.
The above-mentioned act of August 13, 1894, contains no direction respecting where suit upon the bond of a contractor shall be brought by a subcontractor, or what courts shall take jurisdiction of the right of action it creates. As the principal office of the defendant surety company was located within the district, this action was commenced in the court below, as authorized by § 5 of an act of Congress also approved August 13, 1894 (chap. 282, 28 Stat. at L. 279, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 2315), regulating surety companies which execute bonds required by the laws of the United States
The Scofield Company did not defend. The surety company, however, entered a plea to the jurisdiction of the court, contending that as the work done and materials and labor furnished by the Harlan & Hollingsworth corporation were done and furnished after the passage of an act approved February 24, 1905 (chap. 778, 33 Stat. at L. 811, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1911, p. 1071), amendatory of the first-mentioned act of 1894, and making important changes in the rights of a subcontractor, the provisions of the amendatory act governed, and the action should have been commenced in the district in which the contract was to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Masons' Supply Co. v. F. W. Brown Co.
...of the contract which controls. United States v. General Ins. Co. of America, supra, 195; see Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. United States, 228 U.S. 567, 33 S.Ct. 614, 57 L.Ed. 969, and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. United States, 209 U.S. 306, 28 S.Ct. 537, 52 L.Ed. 804 (constru......
-
Illinois Surety Company v. John Davis Company
...381; United States v. Congress Constr. Co. 222 U. S. 199, 56 L. ed. 163, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 44; Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. United States, 228 U. S. 567, 57 L. ed. 969, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 614, the questions raised were as to the jurisdiction of the court. ...
-
City of Coalgate v. Gentilini
...be manifested by a void statute, since a void statute is not effective for any purpose. See, also, Title, etc., Co. v. Harland & Hollingworth, 228 U.S. 567, 33 S. Ct. 614, 57 L. Ed. 969. And we think the same reasoning applies in the case at bar, and that the effect and purpose of this ordi......
-
State v. Cloud
...A. 362; 8 Cyc. 1022; 36 Cyc. 1201; Richards v. City Lbr. Co., 101 Miss. 678; Davidson Bros. Marble Co. v. U.S. 53 L.Ed. 675; Title Guaranty Co. v. U.S. 57 L.Ed. 969; v. Mortgage Co., 112 Miss. 312; R. R. Co. v. Ross, 60 Miss. 641; 36 Cyc. 1205; 14 A. L. R. 707; 27 A. L. R. 479. This case sh......