U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Reno Electrical Works
| Decision Date | 05 September 1919 |
| Docket Number | 2376. |
| Citation | 183 P. 386,43 Nev. 191 |
| Parties | U. S. FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO. v. RENO ELECTRICAL WORKS. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Washoe County; Thomas F. Moran, Judge.
Action by the Reno Electrical Works against the U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Harwood & Tippett, of Reno, for appellant.
LeRoy F. Pike, of Reno, for respondent.
This is an action upon a bond executed by the defendant surety company, appellant here, to secure subcontractors, laborers and materialmen for labor performed and material furnished in the erection, construction, alteration, or repair of a public building or structure.
The second amended complaint alleges substantially that a contract was entered into for the construction of a public building; that thereafter the contractors entered into a contract with plaintiff as subcontractor for the furnishing of material and labor, and for certain construction in connection with said public building; that the plaintiff has performed the conditions of this contract, and there is nothing owing to plaintiff from the contractors on said contract, except the sum of $509.50, still unpaid, though demand has been made of said contractors, who refuse to pay the same.
The complaint further alleges the completion of said public building, and its acceptance within 90 days of the commencement of this action; that a joint and several bond was executed to the trustees of the public building by appellant, conditioned that the contractors would satisfy all claims and demands incurred in the construction of said building, whereby a cause of action accrued to the benefit of plaintiff against defendant under the laws of this state. It is also alleged that plaintiff has been compelled to employ counsel to prosecute the action, and that the sum of $250 is a reasonable sum to allow plaintiff as counsel fees in the action. A copy of the contract with plaintiff and a copy of said bond are attached to and made a part of the complaint, marked "A" and "B," respectively.
Defendants demurred to the second amended complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action. It was overruled by the court, and, the defendant having failed to answer within 10 days limited by the order, its default was entered and judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff, according to the prayer of the complaint.
Defendant appeals from the judgment, and assigns as error: (1) That judgment is contrary to law; and (2) that the court erred in making its findings of fact and conclusions of law and in entering judgment, because the same were made and entered without notice to defendant.
It is claimed that the findings and judgment are not sustained by the pleadings, and are therefore contrary to law. This alleged error lies in the fact that the plaintiff is named in the complaint as the Reno Electrical Works, whereas in the attached copy of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
...that the presence or absence of signatures on the contract is not necessarily dispositive. In United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Reno Electrical Works, 43 Nev. 191, 183 P. 386 (1919), the defendant surety company had executed a bond, but the plaintiff, who sought to enforce it, had no......
-
Commercial Standard Ins. Co. v. Garrett
...Ill. 339, 42 N. E. 386, 30 L. R. A. 491; Sellers v. Greer, 172 Ill. 549, 50 N. E. 246, 40 L. R. A. 589; Reno Electrical Works v. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 43 Nev. 191, 183 P. 386; Sammons v. Patterson, 127 Or. 11, 270 P. The policy proper was signed and form E was attached thereto. If ......
-
Mich. Geosearch, Inc. v. Prosperity Bancshares, Inc.
...a "clerical error" where it is so diminutive that a defendant "could not possibly have been misled." U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Reno Elec. Works, 43 Nev. 191, 194, 183 P. 386, 387 (1919).2 Here, appellants' counsel intentionally named "Prosperity Bancshares, Inc., parent company of and dba as......