United States v. Progressive Contractors, Inc., Civ. No. 3855
| Decision Date | 24 May 1961 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 3855,3856. |
| Citation | 196 F. Supp. 171 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America for the Use and Benefit of the ROBERTSON LUMBER COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE CONTRACTORS, INC., a corporation, and Continental Casualty Company, a corporation, Defendants. UNITED STATES of America for the Use and Benefit of the ROBERTSON LUMBER COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff, v. WILSHIRE CONTRACTORS, INC., a corporation, and Continental Casualty Company, a corporation, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota |
John G. Shaft (of Shaft, Benson & Shaft), Grand Forks, N. D., for use plaintiff, Robertson Lumber Co., a corporation.
James L. Lamb (of Degnan, Hager, McElroy & Lamb), Grand Forks, N. D., for defendant, Continental Cas. Co.
Determination of the legal question involved in the above-entitled actions was submitted to the Court upon briefs after pre-trial conference, all pertinent facts having been stipulated.
Progressive Contractors, Inc., and Wilshire Contractors, Inc., entered into contracts with the United States by and through the Department of the Air Force for construction of housing units at the Grand Forks Air Base. In connection with these contracts Continental Casualty Company as surety executed and delivered payment bonds as required by 42 U.S.C.A. § 1594(a) which in part provides:
"* * * Any such contract shall provide for the furnishing by the contractor of a performance bond and a payment bond with a surety or sureties satisfactory to the Secretary of Defense, or his designee, and the furnishing of such bonds shall be deemed a sufficient compliance with the provisions of section 270a of Title 40, and no additional bonds shall be required under such section. * * *" (Italics added.)
The bond itself provided notice requirements as follows:
The plaintiff entered into contracts with Progressive Contractors, Inc., and Wilshire Contractors, Inc., in which plaintiff agreed to, and did furnish certain materials required under the prime contracts; the prime contractors failed to pay the full amounts due under the subcontracts, and plaintiff commenced these actions to recover under the payment bonds. It was stipulated and agreed between counsel...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Harrison and Grimshaw Construction Co., 6916.
...of New York, D.C.N.D.Calif., 163 F.Supp. 713, is distinguishable from the instant case on its facts. In United States, etc. v. Progressive Contractors, Inc., D.C.N. D., 196 F.Supp. 171, the court held that the notice provisions of the Miller Act control over the notice provisions of a Capeh......
-
Ireland's Lumber Yard v. Progressive Contractors, Inc.
...Circuit, which case reversed the judgment entered by the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota, reported in D.C., 196 F.Supp. 171. The Circuit Court in that case held that failure of the Capehart housing prime contractor's supplier to give notice, as required by the ......
-
Robertson Lumber Co. v. Progressive Contractors, Inc.
...any one of the Obligees, or the Sureties above named, * * *' United States for Use and Benefit of Robertson Lumber Company v. Progressive Contractors, Inc., 196 F.Supp. 171 (D.C.N.D.1961). The opinion of the district court was rendered on May 24, 1961. Prior to that time, to wit: On April 2......
-
United States v. Hal B. Hayes & Associates, Inc.
...under the Miller Act. Among the cases upon which Judge Pickett relied was United States for Use and Benefit of Robertson Lumber Co. v. Progressive Contractors, Inc., D.C., 196 F.Supp. 171, which, relying upon the above-noted jurisdictional cases, specifically held that notice under the Mill......