W. R. Pickering Lbr. Co. v. Fuller
| Decision Date | 16 March 1926 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 16489 |
| Citation | 117 Okla. 53,244 P. 760,1926 OK 259 |
| Parties | W. R. PICKERING LBR. CO. v. FULLER et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Highways--Highway Contractor's Bond--Liability for Material.
The builder's bond provided for by section 7486, C. O. S. 1921, is liable for all material furnished to the contractor, or subcontractor, which is used in, or consumed in, the course of the construction of the project.
2. Same--Nonliability for Material Used in Equipment.
If the consumption of the material, or its value, in a public improvement depends upon the period of time and extent of use, it falls within the classification of equipment. Recovery cannot be had on the builder's bond for such material, or equipment.
3. Same--Judgment Sustained.
Record examined; held, to be sufficient to support judgment in favor of the defendants.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 4.
Error from District Court, Oklahoma County; T. G. Chambers, Judge.
Action by W. R. Pickering Lumber Company against James G. Fuller et al. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Keaton, Wells & Johnston, for plaintiff in error.
G. A. Paul and A. Gray Gilmer, for defendant in error Globe Indemnity Company.
¶1 The W. R. Pickering Lumber Company commenced its action on a statutory builder's bond for material sold and delivered to James G. Fuller et al. The Globe Indemnity Company, surety on the builder's bond, was joined as a defendant. The builder's bond was executed as provided by section 7486, C. O. S. 1921, in connection with a state highway project. James G. Fuller et al. were subcontractors, and purchased lumber from the plaintiff for use in connection with the construction of the state highway. The trial of the cause resulted in judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff has appealed the cause, and assigns as error for reversal, that the judgment is contrary to law and the evidence.
¶2 The court found that the lumber furnished to the subcontractor was used for the following purposes: (1) For forms to receive cement and for bracing the forms. The material was used from section to section until it became worthless for the purpose. (2) For erecting a temporary building for the storage of the cement to be used in the construction of the highway. (3) For the construction of a bin in which to mix the cement for use in the construction of the road.
¶3 The contractor did not move either the shed or the bin after the work was completed. One of the witnesses testified that it would be less expensive, perhaps, to leave the shed and bin on the ground, and buy new material for like purposes for future use.
¶4 The material was used in the nature of equipment to construct the highway. The application of the material to such purposes cannot be said, of itself, to result in the use of the material in the structure, or in the course of making the improvement as contemplated by section 7486, supra. Whether the material so used may be consumed in the course of the construction, will depend on the length of time the material is applied to such use. If the consumption of the material, or its value, in the manner it is applied,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Consol. Cut Stone Co. v. Seidenbach
...observed further that "the life and substance of the material had been used up in the erection of the building." In Pickering Lumber Co. v. Fuller, 117 Okla. 53, 244 P. 760, this court held that a materialman could not recover on a road construction bond for material used in constructing co......
-
Dorsett v. State ex rel. Price
...1916B, 511; Shepard v. Findley (Iowa) 214 N.W. 676, 678; Davis v. Petrinovich (Ala.) 21 So. 344, 86 L. R. A. 615; Pickering Lumber Co. v. Fuller, 117 Okla. 53, 244 P. 760; Cleveland v. Hightower, 108 Okla. 84, 234 P. 614; Osage Oil & Refining Co. v. Gormley, 123 Okla. 186, 252 P. 37. Under ......
-
Am. Tank & Equip. Co. v. T. E. Wiggins, Inc., Case Number: 22710
...McConnell, 102 Ala. 577, 14 So. 768; Meek v. Parker, 63 Ark. 367, 38 S.W. 900. ¶12 This court held, in the case of Pickering Lumber Co. v. Fuller, 117 Okla. 53, 244 P. 760, that the materialman could not recover on a road construction bond for material used in constructing concrete forms, w......
-
U.S. Fid. & Guaranty Co. v. Cagg
...contractor or other. Amerman v. State, 111 Okla. 174, 239 P. 146. The term "material" does not include equipment (W. R. Pickering Lbr. Co. v. Fuller, 117 Okla. 53, 244 P. 760); and rentals on equipment are not within the terms of the bond (Southern Surety Co. v. Municipal Excavator Co., 61 ......