United States v. General Insurance Company of America
| Decision Date | 18 December 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 15761.,15761. |
| Citation | 339 F.2d 194 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America ex rel. DOVER ELEVATOR COMPANY, Etc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, A Washington Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
John B. Mack, Memphis, Tenn., Clifton, Mack, & Kirkpatrick, Memphis, Tenn., of counsel, for appellant.
James W. McDonnell, Jr., Memphis, Tenn., Canada, Russell & Turner, Memphis, Tenn., of counsel, for appellee.
Before WEICK, Chief Judge, MILLER, Circuit Judge, and TALBOT SMITH, District Judge.
This action was brought in the District Court under the Miller Act,1 by a materialman against a bonding company, to recover the value of materials furnished on a public improvement. The defense was that the action was not brought prior to "the expiration of one year after the date of final settlement of such contract," as required by Section 270b(b) of the Act which was in force at the time the contract was entered into.
The Miller Act was amended by Public Law 86-135, effective August 4, 1959, so as to provide for the filing of suit not later than one year from the date on which the last labor was performed or material furnished by the claimant. The purpose of the amendment was to eliminate all responsibility of the Government for fixing dates on which the period for filing suits against Miller Act Payment Bonds commences to run. U. S. Code Congressional and Administrative News, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. p. 1995 (1959).
The prime contract and the bond were dated June 22, 1959, which was prior to the amendment of the Act. If the Act prior to its amendment is applicable, it is conceded that plaintiff's suit was untimely since it was not brought within one year from the final settlement of the contract. It was brought, however, within one year after the last material was furnished, which was timely under the amendment.
It is settled that the Act in force at the time of the execution of the contract controls. Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. United States to the Use of Harlan & Hollingsworth, 228 U.S. 567, 33 S.Ct. 614, 57 L.Ed. 969 (1913).
The limitation provided in the Act was not to be treated as an ordinary statute of limitation. The Act created a new right and prescribed the remedy therefor. The filing of suit within the limitation period was a condition precedent to the exercise of the right. United States ex rel. Texas Portland Cement Co. v. McCord, 233 U.S. 157, 34 S.Ct. 550, 58 L.Ed. 893 (1914); United States ex rel. Soda v. Montgomery, 253 F.2d 509 (C.A.3, 1958); United States...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Masons' Supply Co. v. F. W. Brown Co.
...States v. Gullard, 504 F.2d 466, 468 (9th Cir.); United States v. Home Indemnity Co.,489 F.2d 1004 (7th Cir.); United States v. General Ins. Co. of America,339 F.2d 194 (6th Cir.). As a general rule, where a statute gives a right of action which did not exist at common law, the time fixed f......
-
Delduca v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company
...Cement Co. v. McCord, 1914, 233 U.S. 157, 162, 34 S.Ct. 550, 552, 58 L. Ed. 893, 897. See United States ex rel. Dover Elevator Co. v. General Ins. Co. of America, 6 Cir., 1964, 339 F.2d 194; United States for Use of Soda v. Montgomery, 3 Cir., 1958, 253 F.2d 509; cf. Peerless Cas. Co. v. Un......
-
United States v. Continental Casualty Company
...with this time provision is a condition precedent to the institution of a Miller Act claim. See, United States ex rel. Dover Elevator Co. v. General Ins. Co., 339 F.2d 194 (6th Cir. 1964); United States ex rel. T. Square Equipment Corp. v. Gregor J. Schaefer Sons, Inc., 272 F.Supp. 962 (E.D......
-
U.S. v. Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland
...also Delduca v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 357 F.2d 204, 208 (5th Cir.1966); United States ex rel. Dover Elevator Co. v. General Ins. Co., 339 F.2d 194, 195 (6th Cir.1964) (per curiam). However, to the extent that the word "jurisdictional" is used in those cases, it refers to th......