Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

HARDAWAY v. NATIONAL SURETY COMPANY.

decided: January 4, 1909.

HARDAWAY
v.
NATIONAL SURETY COMPANY.



APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT.

Author: Day

[ 211 U.S. Page 553]

 MR. JUSTICE DAY delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirming a decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Kentucky, whereby the appellants Hardaway and Prowell were denied the right to recover against the appellee, the National Surety Company, as surety for the faithful performance of a certain contract entered into on September 28, 1899, between the United States and a firm of contractors composed of James E. Willard, Charles L. Cornwell and Joseph Coyne, doing business as Willard & Cornwell. The contract was for the construction of a lock and dam No. 4, in the Black Warrior River, near Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Bond was given in accordance with the requirements of the act of Congress approved August 13, 1894, c. 280, 28 Stat. 278, in order to secure the faithful performance of the contract.

The contract has been kept so far as the United States is concerned, and the surety is relieved from obligation in that respect. The contention in this case involves the construction and application of that condition of the bond, which requires

[ 211 U.S. Page 554]

     the contractors to "promptly make full payments to all persons supplying them labor or materials in the prosecution of the work, provided for in said contract."

The question for consideration here is, under the circumstances of the case can Hardaway and Prowell recover upon the bond on their claim as for labor done and material furnished within the terms thereof? The record discloses that the original contractors carried on the work until February 5, 1901, when they made an agreement between themselves and Coyne, by which agreement Coyne was to pay the debts of the firm, to make all future purchases in his own name, and to receive all profits from the contract. After February 5, 1901, Coyne carried on the work. The Government made the checks payable to Willard and Cornwell as before, in accordance with the terms of the contract. On June 2, 1903, Coyne having become financially unable to complete the contract, made a contract in writing with Hardaway and Prowell, which we shall hereinafter set out in full, concerning the work.

Owing to freshets and washouts, as is contended by appellants, it became necessary to do over much of the work, and after its completion appellants made a claim for $32,757.34, interest included to March 1, 1906, and included therein $7,556, being fifteen per cent of the cost expended on the contract with Coyne.

On October 24, 1904, the National Surety Company, appellee, filed a bill in the United States court at Louisville, averring the insolvency of the contractors, and that there would be a loss for labor and material which it would be compelled to pay as surety on the bond, asking for an injunction and the appointment of a receiver. On November 8, 1904, an order was made referring the case to a special master, and providing that parties having claims for labor and materials might prove the same with the right to contest them, and to take the proofs thereof as in equity cases. The order provided that appellee, the surety company, should pay into court, in satisfaction of the claims and costs of action, such a

[ 211 U.S. Page 555]

     sum as might be required after the Government payments were exhausted.

The claim of Hardaway and Prowell was filed. A special master allowed the claim. Upon error the Circuit Court disallowed the same, and upon appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit the decree was affirmed. 150 Fed. Rep. 465; S.C., 80 @C.C.A. 283. The case then came here.

The case turns upon the construction of the contract between Coyne and Hardaway and Prowell. The contract reads as follows:

"State of Alabama, Tuscaloosa County:

"This contract, made this 2nd day of June, 1903, by and between B.H. Hardaway and R.P. Prowell, hereinafter called Hardaway & Prowell, as parties of the first part, and Joseph Coyne, as party of the second part, witnesseth:

"That, whereas, Willard & Cornwell, a firm composed of J.E. Willard, C.R. Cornwell and the said Joseph Coyne, did, heretofore, on to-wit, the -- day of --, 1899, enter into a contract with United States for the construction of lock No. 4 in the Black Warrior River above Tuscaloosa, Alabama, and whereas, shortly after the beginning of the work upon said lock the said Joseph Coyne, by an arrangement between him and his co-partners, undertook to complete and finish said lock according to the specifications of the contract of said firm with the United States, and in consideration of such an undertaking acquired the beneficial interest of said firm in said contract and was to receive all amounts paid by the United States in consideration of such contract, and whereas, said lock is still uncompleted, and the said Joseph Coyne cannot, on account of his inability to procure the necessary financial aid, and on account of the disorganization of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.