Document: 353 U.S. 210 77 S.Ct. 793 1 L.Ed.2d 776 UNITED STATES of America for the Benefit and on Behalf Harry SHERMAN, Chas. Robinson, Ronald D. Wright, et al., Petitioners,v.Donald G. CARTER, Individually; Donald Carter, Doing Business as CarterConstruction Company, al. No. 48. Argued Dec. 5, 1956. Decided April 29, 1957. Mr. Thomas E. Stanton, Jr., San Francisco, Cal., petitioners. Richard C. Dinkelspiel, respondents. Justice BURTON delivered opinion Court. This case concerns extent liability surety a payment bond furnished by contractor, required Miller Act, protection persons supplying labor construction federal public buildings.1 The collective-bargaining contract under which laborers were hired obligated contractor to pay them wages at specified rates and, in addition, 7 1/2 cents per hour their trustees health welfare fund established benefit that other workers. When failed full contributions fund, sued contractor's recover balance due plus liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, court costs expenses. For reasons hereafter stated, we hold § 2(a) Act imposes surety. 2 In November 1952, respondent contracted with United States construct certain buildings Air Force bases California. As he filed performance bonds executed respondent, Hartford Accident Indemnity was penal sum $52,434.30, provided obligation shall be void 'if principal promptly make all material prosecution work said * otherwise remain force *.' 3 terms Carter employed prescribed master agreements governing conditions employment industry 46 counties northern Those had been negotiated June 1952 through collective bargaining between local council union representing workers several associations employers, one acted an agent Carter. his employees not less than prevailing determined Government. also that, beginning February 1, 1953, each worked employees. 4 trust agreement dated March 4, parties agreements. Its pertinent provisions follows: administered board employers authorized use employer purchase various types insurance, such life, accidental death, hospitalization surgical policies, eligible dependents beneficiaries.2 no rights insurance benefits except policies. Also, they right, title or interest contributions, it expressly stated 'shall constitute deemed wages' 5 sole power demand enforce prompt contributions. payable monthly installments. Any installment paid 25th month came delinquent, $20 delinquency 10% amount due, whichever greater, owed delinquent damages penalty. If suit secure any installments, defaulting reasonable expenses incurred litigation. 6 became insolvent after completing paying directly them. However, February, 1953. Pursuant 2(b) name States, instituted this action against District Court Northern complaint sought recovery unpaid expenses, total about $500. facts stipulated court, hearing, granted surety's motion summary judgment. Appeals affirmed, holding right sue since neither who material, nor seeking sums 'justly due' persons. 9 Cir., 229 F.2d 645. We certiorari resolve questions statutory are issue. 351 917, 76 710, 100 L.Ed. 1450. Section 1(a)(2) provides before exceeding $2,000 is awarded person, person furnish satisfactory 'for 49 Stat. 793, 40 U.S.C. 270a(a)(2), U.S.C.A. 270a(a)(2). 2(a), issue here, 'Every has therefor have justly him (Emphasis supplied.) 794, 270b(a), 270b(a). 8 must least coextensive obligations imposed if its intended effect. involved here meet requirements appears, face, comply these requirements. There indication coverage exceed insures 'to trustees' depend upon, measured by, applicable Act. While precise now presented ones first impression, prior decisions construing 1935 predecessor, Heard 1894,3 indicate should receive liberal effectuate protective purposes. 10 'The like highly remedial nature. It entitled application order properly Congressional intent protect those whose materials go into projects. Fleisher Engineering Co. v. Use Hollenbeck, 311 15, 17, 18, 61 81, 82, 83, 85 12; cf. Noland Irwin, 316 23, 30, 62 899. 902, 86 1241. But salutary policy does justify ignoring plain words limitation imposing wholesale bonds.' Clifford F. MacEvoy 322 102, 107, 64 890, 893, 88 1163. 11 represents congressional effort lieu might state statutes respect nonfederal buildings. essence provide who, good suppliers material. Thus broad but unlimited protection.4 12 undisputed employee above wage rate, had, representative, agreed contribute would default extra hour. argues made theated differently. contends agreement, 'wages' Carter's employees, having received them, 'paid full' term used however, limit 'wages.' part consideration services jobs. compensation done relation emphasized fact exact number hours performed Not until will accordance 13 suggests covered because set forth appeared only source concededly guaranteed bond. Nothing restricted what specifically States. fact, extended some contractual relationship example, contributed subcontractors Act's protection. See case, supra, pages 105, 107—108, 892, 893—894. long relating satisfied, served purpose. 14 promised 'sums An answer contention found cases arising involving suits assignees claims furnishing Such made. They did seek themselves assignments extinguished contractors' obligation.5 Yet within bond.6 pointed out denial assignee's deprive whom security fair chance realize upon assignment.7 nothing language, legislative history, related Congress overturn when replaced broader more Act.8 15 assignee can bond, employees' able do so. Whether are, technical sense, need decided. Suffice say closely analogous assignment. created simultaneously collect behalf gave exclusive payment. stand shoes rights. 16 Moreover, even better usual own account. claiming beneficiaries very labor. means maintained purposes substance much earned cash. 17 claim litigation equal merit. items agreement. form included. Their amount, remains determined. 18 makes liable together additional described. judgment Appeals, therefore, reversed cause remanded further consistent opinion. 19 Reversed remanded. 20 WHITTAKER took decision case. '* (a) contract, construction, alteration, repair building following bonds, become binding award hereinafter designated 'contractor': '(1) A sureties officer awarding deem adequate, '(2) person. 'Sec. 2. Every expiration period ninety days day last supplied made, thereof, time institution prosecute final execution him: Provided, That direct subcontractor express implied giving written notice from date stating substantial accuracy claimed party performed. '(b) section brought suing, district elsewhere, irrespective controversy suit, commenced year settlement contract. suit.' §§ 270a(1, 2), 270b, 270b. regulation eligibility benefits. unit, whether member laborers' union, could eligible. Each given credit every fund. credits 400 six-month plan succeeding six months. His during industry. August 13, 1894, 28 278, amended, 33 811, 36 1167. (1934 ed.) 270, 270. One limitation, inapplicable comes proviso 2(a). note supra. concluded effect bring materialmen, deal prime (2) sub-subcontractors lacking give contractor.' page 894. Here workmen project him. Corbin, Contracts (1951 ed.), 891; Restatement, Contracts, 150. also, Looney Columbia, 113 258, 463, 974; Blair Commissioner, 300 57 330, 81 465. Title Guaranty & Trust Crane Co., 219 24, 35, 31 140, 142, 55 72; Fidelity ex rel. Bartlett, 231 237, 243, 34 88, 89, 58 200; Nat. Bank Rundle, 400, 403; Jackson Ornamental Iron Bronze Works Brent, D.C., 236 771, 777; Bartlett Kling Dings, 249 322, 325. Conn., F.R.D. 274, 277. 105—106, that— while repealed reinstated basic designed primarily eliminate procedural limitations beneficiaries. expressed purpose history restrict way Act; rather remove difficulties exist earlier measure thereby easier creditors bond.'

Category: 7