The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1907-02-08
- =
'1.HE OPINIONS
HANDED DOWN.
--------
Circuit Court OF Richmond Al
! firnlcd in One Of Numerous
slipyard Cases
AND MANY OTHER OPINIONS
---------------
In the Main Former Opinions Of
the Court Were Merely
-a Rcaffirilled.
AND MANY OTHER {; OPINIONS

j & |
4 In the Supreme Court Of Appeals yes
terdny eight opinions were handed down
by the judges, but none or them wero
OF general interest, being only rcpet-
tons Of decisions that have heretofore
been submitted In cases OF similar char
acter The cnsc OF the Penn Iron Com
pany, Ltd, ngainst the William II. Trigg
Company ms lcng been pending, and
isfof. local interest. 1t went up to the
highest court from the Circuit Court
OF the city of Richmond. Judge Harrl-
son handed down he decision.
The Penn Iron Company Instituted this
action IN the name Of the Unlted States
OF America against the TriEg Company |
UPON bond for 10000, executed by 1t,
with the Virgnin Trust Company rs
surety, for the faithful performance Of "a
contract with the United States govern
1ncnt for the construction OF d scn-going |
dredge, The Penn Iron Company sought !
to recover in the suit sa16.7s for materials
furnished by It and used In the construc-
ton OF the dredgc. The suit was dis
missed In tho lower court upon Il de-
murrer to the declaration, which judy |
mcnt was brought before the Supreme
Court for review.
The opinion states that the bond. being |
n common law bond. is the property OF
the United States, and no suit can be ,
y brought on It by any beneficiary under
II. In the name Of the United States. for
his benefit, unless come Federal statute I!
authorizes It; and that therefore. the
4 question to be determined IL, Did the
plaintiff have authority from the sove-
\ reign to whom this bond is payable to
institute this action upon 1t?
AS authority to sue upon the bond
8 the Iron company relied upon an act
OF Compress, providing that when any
person enters into formal contract
with The United states for the construc-
ton OF any public building or the prose-
cution and completion OF any pubic
wors,.," they shall be required to execute
bond for the performance OF the CON
tract, and that any person furnishing
materials or labor for the prosecution
OF the work. for which payn,ent mas ,a,
not been made, lnay,,by complying VIII
certain conditions, bring suit on the
bond In the name Of the United States
for his use and benefit against the con-
tractor and sureties
Construction of Words.
The question OF the right OF the party
IA this case to bring such a suit turns
,ipon ths, construction Of the words pub
lie building and public work" MS used
il that act, and whether they apply 70
the construction OF a sea going dredge:$
.e5, Iqs con einsion & tha1 the at Il co
g 8 rress, approved Angus, 10. 1904 undcE
IS fhe most liberal construction that can %
given It, cannot be held to have intenuco
that the sea-going suction dredge men
toned in the bond sued on should Dc
Included in the class OF public Works
contemplated by the statute. II me
n h,,i,d,ne OF such q vessel was the char
octer OF public work intended by the
statute. II would follow logically that the
manufacture OF clothing for the army,
the making OF hotseshpes or the manu-,
fncture OF any. other article OF personal
property to be used by the government =
the prosecution OF q Spuphc WOE" orh' ~,
nrc OF the opinion that the reasonable
construction OF the statute Is
that the act does not contemplate con :
tracts for the construction OF vessels Ct
any other movable articles, but relates
to contracts for the construction OF pup
& fllc buildings and fixed Improvements
such as fortiiications, river ana harIoo'
Improvements. etc. !. !,
at follows from what has been saic
that this action cannot be maintained by
virtue OF the provisions OF the act or Au'
r,st 49, 1904, and therefore the JUICE
ment of the Circuit Court sustaining tn
donirrers must be affirmed.
Other Opinions.
other opinions handed down were a
follows:
BY Judge John A. Buchanan:
Manchester Home Building ana LOG l.
Association ct ais. vs.. Porter. circul
Court OF Chesterfield county. Reverse q
richardson VS.. Jones. trustee. CIR
cult Court OF Gloucester county Al
frmed S
BY Judge George NJ. Harrison:
Gatewood. vs.. Garrett. Circuit Cour
OF King William county. Reversed.
jenkins, &C., VS. Rhodes, &c. CIR
cult Court OF Isle OF Wight county. Al
frmed.
BY Judge Stafford &. Whittle:
{i,SIcwis vs. Palmer ct ais. Circul
Court Of Brunswick county. Amende
and affirmed.
Barkley Street Railway Company "
Simpson. Circuit Court OF Norfolk
county. Reversed
Writ of Error.
Sa Tho court awarded II writ Of crrogi
the case Of the Southern Railway VI
Davis from the Circuit Court of Neck
lenburg county. Bond for $1,5OO.
a writ OF error was refused In tn
case or Scales vs.. the Commonwealth
FROM the85 Circuit Court OF Patr!c
cnl}n tN-t.e..!st: s5
LEGISLATOR Resigns,