Title Guaranty Trust Company v. Crane Company

Citation219 U.S. 24,55 L.Ed. 72,31 S.Ct. 140
Decision Date19 December 1910
Docket NumberNo. 67,67
PartiesTITLE GUARANTY & TRUST COMPANY of scranton, pennsylvania, Plff. in Err., v. CRANE COMPANY, F. R. Bates and T. S. Clark, Copartners as Bates & Clark Company, et al
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Messrs. James B. Murphy, C. H. Winders, and M. M. Richardson for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 25-29 intentionally omitted] Mr. Ira Bronson for defendants in error except the Crane Company.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 29-31 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an action brought under the act of August 13, 1894, chap. 280, 28 Stat. at L. 278, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 2523, as amended by the act of February 24, 1905, chap. 778, 33 Stat. at L. 811, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1909, p. 948, upon a bond given to the United States, as required by that act. The contract to secure which the bond was given was a contract by the Puget Sound Engine Works to build and deliver a single screw wooden steamer for the United States, and the main question in the case is whether the statute applies to a contract for such a chattel. If not, parties like the plaintiffs, who furnished labor or materials for the work, have no standing to maintain the suit. We proceed, as soon as may be, to dispose of that question, leaving details and minor objections to be taken up later in turn. It was raised by demurrer to the declaration, and subsequently by what was entitled an affirmative defense pleaded by the surety and a demurrer by the plaintiffs. The decision was for the plaintiffs, against the surety, in the circuit court of appeals. 89 C. C. A. 618, 163 Fed. 168.

The amended statute requires any person 'entering into a formal contract with the United States for the construction of any public building, or the prosecution and completion of any public work, or for repairs upon any public building or public work, . . . to execute the usual penal bond . . . with the additional obligation that such contractor or contractors shall promptly make payments to all persons supplying him or them with labor and materials in the prosecution of the work.' It gives any person who has furnished labor or materials used in the construction or repair of any public work, which have not been paid for, the right to intervene in a suit upon the bond. In short, besides securing the United States, the act is intended to protect persons furnishing materials or labor 'for the construction of public works,' as the title declares. The question narrows itself accordingly to whether the steamer was a 'public work' within the meaning of the words as used.

As a preliminary to the answer, it is relevant to mention that by article 3 of the contract, partial payments are provided for as the 'labor and materials furnished' equal certain percentages of the total, and that by article 4 'the portion of the vessel completed and paid for under said method of partial payments shall become the property of the United States,' although the contractor remains responsible for the care of the portion paid for, and by article 2 there is to be a final test of the vessel when completed. The vessel has been built and accepted, and is now in possession of the United States. Notwithstanding these facts, it was argued that the statute did not apply to the contract, because the laborers and materials had a lien by the state law; and that, even if the statute applied, they had lost their rights by not asserting them before the delivery of the vessel, as before that, it is said, the title did not pass to the United States. Among other things, this ended the right to subrogation that the surety might have claimed. But the very recent decision in United States v. Ansonia Brass & Copper Co. 218 U. S. 452, 54 L. ed. 1107, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 49 [Nov. 28, 1910] establishes that the title to the completed portion of the vessel passed, as provided in article 4, and that the laborers and materialmen could not have asserted the lien supposed to exist.

The case cited shows, therefore, that such claimants are within the policy of the statute. It also contains a strong intimation that they are within the meaning of its words. For it refers to the statute, and says that it was in recognition of the inability of such persons to take liens upon the public property of the United States that Congress passed the act, and adds that, in view of this purpose to provide protection for those who could not protect themselves, the statute has been given liberal construction by this court. See also United States use of Hill v. American Surety Co. 200 U. S. 197, 50 L. ed. 437, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 168. The reference and comment when the attempt was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
140 cases
  • Busker v. Wabtec Corp.
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • August 16, 2021
    ...the term " ‘public work’ " as "confined 282 Cal.Rptr.3d 346 to work on land." ( Title Guaranty & Trust Co. of Scranton v. Crane Co. (1910) 219 U.S. 24, 33, 31 S.Ct. 140, 55 L.Ed. 72.) This reliance is tenuous. Crane did not involve a question of prevailing wage entitlement. Aside from ackno......
  • Busker v. Wabtec Corp.
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • August 16, 2021
    ...it was not bound to read the term " ‘public work’ " as "confined to work on land." ( Title Guaranty & Trust Co. of Scranton v. Crane Co. (1910) 219 U.S. 24, 33, 31 S.Ct. 140, 55 L.Ed. 72.) This reliance is tenuous. Crane did not involve a question of prevailing wage entitlement. Aside from ......
  • Shoshoni Lumber Co. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • August 29, 1933
    ... ... by the Shoshoni Lumber Company against the Fidelity & Deposit ... Company of ... 13 Wis. 504; Rhode Island Hospital Trust Co. v. Kenney ... (N. D.) 48 N.W. 341; Ensley ... v. Hocker (Ohio) 170 N.E. 377; Title Guaranty & ... Trust Co. v. Crane Co. (U. S.) ... ...
  • State Bank of Wheatland v. Turpen
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • June 26, 1934
    ... ... Turpen and ... Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, in which Shoshoni ... Garage, Inc., ... v ... Bank, (Ind.) 176 N.E. 846; Crane Co. v. Pacific ... Heating and Power Co., ... 780; 227 F. 784; U. S ... v. Trust Co., 89 F. 925; Alexander Lumber Co. v ... 586, 197 P. 941; U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v ... City, 55 Cal.App. 209, 203 P. 151 ... surety in recognizing the contractor's full title to such ... checks by taking them on deposit ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Public Bidding and Contracts
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive New York Fire District Officers' Guide - 2021 Contents
    • August 2, 2021
    ...being attached to the soil. De La Cruz v Caddell Dry Dock & Repair Co. Inc., 21 NY 3d 530, US Title Guaranty & Trust Co. v. Crane Co. , 219 U.S. 24. PUBLIC BIDDING AND CONTRACTS §8:251 PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT— THREE PRONG TESTS Three factors are used to determine whether a particular project i......
  • Public Bidding and Contracts
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive New York Fire District Officers' Guide - 2017 Contents
    • August 13, 2017
    ...being attached to the soil. De La Cruz v Caddell Dry Dock & Repair Co. Inc., 21 NY 3d 530, US Title Guaranty & Trust Co. v. Crane Co. , 219 U.S. 24. §8:251 PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT – THREE PRONG TEST Three factors are used to determine whether a particular project is subject to the prevailing w......
  • Public Bidding and Contracts
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive New York Fire District Officers' Guide - 2016 Contents
    • August 16, 2016
    ...being attached to the soil. De La Cruz v Caddell Dry Dock & Repair Co. Inc., 21 NY 3d 530, US Title Guaranty & Trust Co. v. Crane Co. , 219 U.S. 24. §8:251 PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT – THREE PRONG TEST Three factors are used to determine whether a particular project is subject to the prevailing w......
  • Public Bidding and Contracts
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive New York Fire District Officers' Guide - 2018 Contents
    • August 2, 2018
    ...being attached to the soil. De La Cruz v Caddell Dry Dock & Repair Co. Inc., 21 NY 3d 530, US Title Guaranty & Trust Co. v. Crane Co. , 219 U.S. 24. §8:251 PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT – THREE PRONG TEST Three factors are used to determine whether a particular project is subject to the prevailing w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT