United States v. Farley
| Decision Date | 11 January 1899 |
| Citation | 91 F. 474 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. FARLEY et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
Jess & Kintzinger, for plaintiffs.
Lyon & Lyon, for defendants.
From the evidence in this case it appears that in September, 1897 the firm of George W. Farley & Co. entered into a contract with the United States to do the work and furnish the material needed in the construction of certain wing dams and shore protections on the Mississippi river between Dubuque and Le Claire, Iowa, and, to secure the proper performance of such contract on their part, they executed a bond, under date of September 18, 1897, with sureties, in the sum of $7,000 conditioned, among other things, that they would 'promptly make full payments to all persons supplying them with labor or materials in the prosecution of the work provided in said contract. ' It further appears that Farley & Co. made a verbal contract with one George Cornish to furnish certain rock or stone needed for the performance of the contract, the same to be delivered on the scows belonging to the contractors, and to be paid for at the rate of 38 cents per cubic yard. This stone was furnished by Cornish, and the full amount called for by the agreement with Farley & Co. was paid by them to Cornish, but he failed to pay in full the men by him employed in the work of quarrying the stone and delivering it to Farley & Co.; and the present action is brought on the bond given by Farley & Co. to the United States on behalf of these creditors of Cornish, and thus the question is presented whether Farley & Co. and their sureties are bound, by the terms of the bond, as applied to its subject-matter, to pay the obligation of the subcontractor Cornish, incurred by him in carrying out the contract made with Farley & Co.
On behalf of plaintiffs, it is claimed that the arrangement made between Farley & Co. and Cornish was, in effect, an assignment of the contract between the United States and Farley & Co., within the prohibition of section 3737 of the Revised Statutes, which declares that 'no contract or order or any interest therein shall be transferred by the party to whom such contract or order is given'; and therefore it must be assumed that the plaintiffs really performed the work, by them sued for, directly for Farley & Co. It is clear, however, that the contract between Farley & Co. and Cornish, by which the latter agreed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Mosier
... 169 F. 430 SMITH v. MOSIER et al. United States Circuit Court, N.D. New York. March 23, 1909 ... [169 F. 431] ... F. T ... 197, 26 Sup.Ct. 168, ... 50 L.Ed. 437, which in effect overrules United States v ... Farley et al. (C.C.) 91 F. 474, and United States v ... Simon et al., 98 F. 73, 38 C.C.A. 659 ... ...
-
C. S. Luck & Sons Inc v. Boat-wright.*
...to bind them." American Surety Co. of New York v. United States, for Use of Barrett, 127 Ala. 349, 28 So. 664, 665. In United States v. Farley (C. C.) 91 F. 474, it appears that Farley & Co. contracted with the federal government to do certain work on the Mississippi river. For its proper p......
-
United States v. James Baird Co.
...or material to a subcontractor had no right of action on the contractor's bond. United States v. Simon (C. C. A.) 98 F. 73; United States v. Farley (C. C.) 91 F. 474; Mosier v. Kurchhoff, 51 Misc. 432, 101 N. Y. S. 643; see United States to Use of Vermont Marble Co. v. Burgdorf, 13 App. D. ......