Union Indem. Co. v. State
| Decision Date | 26 March 1930 |
| Citation | 99 Fla. 656,127 So. 307 |
| Parties | UNION INDEMNITY CO. v. STATE to Use of HAIGLER et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Putnam County; Geo. Wm. Jackson, Judge.
Suit by the State, for the use of Haigler and Hawkins, against the Union Indemnity Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
Robert H. Anderson and John H. Summerlin, both of Jacksonville, for plaintiff in error.
Thomas B. Dowda, of Palatka, for defendants in error.
In this case Union Indemnity Company executed a surety bond such as is contemplated and required under provisions of section 5397, C. G. L. 1927, on behalf on N. C. Cash, who was the contractor with the state road department for the construction of certain road work between the town of Interlachen, in Putnam county, and the Alachua county line.
During the progress of the work it became needful and expedient, in the interest of efficiency and convenience, for the contractor to provide means to feed and take care of his laborers, and to do this the contractor established a camp in which he boarded his laborers, aggregating from 50 to 70 in number.
It was alleged in the declaration, in effect, that the work under the contract and bond was done largely in a sparsely settled community or section where there were no hotels or boarding houses for the accommodation of the laborers, and that it was necessary and that Cash was compelled to, and did, furnish board for his laborers under an agreement whereby the cost of supplying each laborer such board was deducted from his wages. It was further alleged that the groceries for the boarding of such laborers, by Cash, were furnished to Cash by the plaintiffs for such purpose, and that such groceries were used by Cash in boarding his laborers, and were supplied by the plaintiffs to Cash in the prosecution of the work provided for in the contract, and in the bond upon which this suit was brought. That such groceries were furnished to the amount and value of $731.71 and that neither Cash nor the defendant had paid the same, or any part thereof, though both had been requested so to do.
There is no denial that the groceries were furnished in the manner and for the purpose alleged. The suit was defended on the theory that the sureties on the bond were not liable for the value of the groceries furnished the contractor, for the purposes alleged in the declaration.
The allegations of the declaration were amply sustained by proof on trial.
The provisions of section 5397, C. G. L. 1927, 3533 R. G. S. originally being section 1 of chapter 6867, Acts of 1915, appears to have been adopted from the Act of Congress of August 13, 1894, as amended February 24, 1905, and as later amended March 3, 1911 (40 USCA § 270). The original Congressional Act was couched in practically the same language as is section 5397, C. G. L., except, of course, that in the state statute the state of Florida and the political subdivisions of the state are referred to, while in the federal statute the United States is referred to. It will be observed that in the federal statute the contractor was bound to pay all persons supplying him, or them, 'labor and materials' in the prosecution of the work provided for in the contract, while our statute requires the contractor to promptly make payments to all persons supplying him or them 'labor, material and supplies' (italics ours). The federal statute refers to labor and materials used in the prosecution of the work, while the state statute refers to labor, material, and supplies used directly or indirectly by the contractor, subcontractor, etc., in the prosecution of the work. Therefore, it is clear that the statute under which the bond was given, which forms the basis of this suit, contemplated the protection of persons furnishing supplies to the contractor under conditions obtaining in the instant case.
There are numerous cases which sustain this holding, but it is not necessary for us to go further than a decision of the United States Supreme Court construing the federal statute hereinbefore...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J.F. Tolton Inv. Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co.
... ... v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. , 96 Ore. 2, 189 P. 207; ... Southern Surety Co. v. Guaranty State Bank ... (Tex. Civ. App.) 275 S.W. 436; McPhee v. United ... States , 64 Colo. 421, 174 P ... 592; Franzen v. Southern Surety Co. , 35 ... Wyo. 15, 246 P. 30, 46 A.L.R. 496; Union Indemnity ... Co. v. State (Fla.) 99 Fla. 656, 127 So. 307 ... In most ... of the ... ...
-
Delduca v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company
...ex rel. Bond Plumbing Supply Inc. v. Hardrives Co., Fla.Dist. Ct.App., 1964, 167 So.2d 339, 340. Accord, Union Indemnity Co. v. State, 1930, 99 Fla. 656, 127 So. 307. Solving a problem of first impression in Florida, the Court in Board of Public Instruction, etc. v. Rood Constr. Co., Fla.Di......
-
Board of Public Instruction, Broward County, ex rel. and for Use and Benefit of Monmouth Plumbing Supply Co. v. Rood Const. Co.
...§ 270a, et seq., which is the basis for our Chapter 255. See Winchester v. State, Fla.App.1961, 134 So.2d 826; Union Indemnity Company v. State, 99 Fla. 656, 127 So. 307; and Kidd v. City of Jacksonville, 106 Fla. 312, 143 So. The United States Supreme Court in the case of MacEvoy v. United......
-
City of Fort Lauderdale ex rel. Bond Plumbing Supply, Inc. v. Hardrives Co.
...means materials that are supplied to a contractor or to sub-contractors which are consumed in performing the work, Union Indemnity Co. v. State, 1930, 99 Fla. 656, 127 So. 307, and not to mean materials supplied to a The appellant claims that since the word 'subcontractor' is not defined in......