Maryland independent. [volume] (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1874-current, 1914-08-21
THE COURTS OPINION.

company against 'eeph H. HoW1fd /
and Charles d. Rue trading as Howard |
& Rue; Messrs. Howard n Rue
brought suit before Justice L. NJ.
Switzerland sometime prior to the last
May term of Court on an ac-
count against the National Surety
Co. as bondsmen for the Hickey
Swami Co., the latter having gone into
bankruptcy on an account for coal
furnished the Rickey-Swann Company
for use In their engines used in build
ing one of the State roads In this coun-
ty The Justice rendered verdict in
favor of Messrs. Howard 4 Rue from
which an appeal was taken to the Cir
cult Court for this county. The case
was submitted to the Court which after
hearing arguments on the facts and the
law in the case, sustained the lower
court. The Court filed the following
written opinion in the case:
This case presents the construction OF
contract and bond, entered into and
given by the Kicky Swami Co a New
Jersey corporation. as Principal, TO the
state Of Maryland, with the appellant
as surety. for the construction Of sec
ton 81 state highway, betw cen La Plata
| ano the Prince Georges county line
ne contract was awarded by the State
Roads Commission, acting on behalf
Of the State, and the bend was given BY
the contractor in pursuance of the
statute, sec. 80 OF Art. 81. Of the Code,
with the National Surety Co. New
York corporation, the appellant here as
surety thereon.
1t is admitted that the Principals in
solvent and that the c,al the subject
matter Of this suit, was sold and FUR
nished by the appellee to the Ricsy
Swami Co. the contractor, for use in the
engines for hauling gravel and IN oper-
ating steam roller in the constructio-'
of the State Road by the Principal, IN
der the contract, and that the above
appellant is surety on the bond under
the terms Of the statute above referred
} to.
1t is conceded that the Principal was
liable and that the coal was furnished
I and used by the contractor in the con
, struction Of the State work, but it is
earnestly urged, that coal is not labor
or material within the usual and ordi-
nary meaning of those terms, aud is not
covered by terms Of the bond and
contract
And further, that the coal does not
fall within the terms Of the statute
which provides that ''the payment Of
, all just debts for labor and materials
incurred by the bidder in the construc-
: ton and Improvement of the road con.
traeted for"
1t must be borne in mind that we are
here dealing with the liability OF sure.
i. ty, on statutory bond, one Of the con-
ditions Of the obligation being the faith.
! full execution and performance of the
contract on the part of the Principal
and the statutory obligation on the part
| Of the surety, ito the payment of all
Just debts for labor and materials in
Cured by the bidder In the construction
+ and improvement Of the road contract
ed for"
While ii is an accepted legal propo-
sition, that the obligation Of surety
is to he measured by the liability and
responsibility Of the Principal. and can
, Hot be extended beyond the contract;
the bond constituting the contract must
however have sucn construction given
20 it, as to carry out the intention OF
the parties thereto.
In Credit Indemnity Co. VS.. Cassard,
So Md. 276. it is said, contracts of this
character, like policies of fire Insurance.
TO which they are closely analogous
must receive reasonable construction
so as to give effect to the intention of
the parties thereto. and so as to carry
out rather than defeat the purposes for
which they were executed. They should
neither, on the one hand, be So mar
rowly or technically interpreted as to
Illustrate their obvious design; NOE, on
the other hand, so loosely or inartifi-
cially as to relieve the obligor from a
liability fairly within the scope or
spirit OF their terms.
In Aetna Indemnity 20. VS.. Waters.
Ito Md. 600, Judge Schumacher in speak
ing for the Court, said: ''In dealing
with the construction Of the bond in
this case and Of the contract of faithful
performance of which it was intended
10 secure, we have kept in view the at
titude assumed by us in several recent
cases of similar character especially
the case OF State use of Smith VS. Tur-
ner, l0l Md. 5S4, where we said: "While
the liability Of the surety is not to be
enlarged by mere implication, yet in
the effort to ascertain what these duties
are, reasonable construction is to be
given to the language Of the statutes
dealing with these duties, and the con-
strrction is not to be strained Ia order
to effect release OF . surety, whose
obligation is deliberately entered into,
as commercial transaction, and with
the exclusive view to the pecuniary
profit resulting from it,
At the January Session 1910, of the
General Assembly of Maryland, the Act
here in question was passed.
Act 1910, Chap. 72l, page 29S.
This Act, repealed sec. ID, of Article
81 Of the Code, sub title Public Roads,
as enacted by Chapter al of the Acts
of 1905. and re-enacted 1t with amend
ments. The latter part of the Acs is
as follows: "ln all cases where the
contract for work aud materials shall
be given out after competitive bidding.
the successful bidder shall promptly
execute formal contract to be spprov-
, ed as to its form, terms and conditions
by said Commission. and shall also ex-
eeute and deliver to said Commission a
. good and sufficient bond to be approved
/ by said Commission to the State of
a Mafylahu IN not less tnan the am unit
of the contract price. Iu no case shall
any such bond be approved or accepted
unless the obligators bind themselves
l therein to the payments OF all just
/ debts for labor and materials incurred
by the bidder in the construction and
; Improvement Of the road contracted for
! To all such bids there shall be attached
! the certified check of the bidder. and
the bidder who has the contract a.
: warded to him and who fails tn prompt
ly and properly execute the contract
0 and bond hall forfeit the said contract. y
III The manifest object of this Act, was
TO require bonds TO be given by the
contractors for certain State road work,
to cover claims for work done, material
n provided and for supplies, in the con.
struction and improvement of all State
4 highways under the supervision Of the
Commission. 1t was TO remedy con-
ditioa that had existed in certain sec
tions of the State, where contractors
had failed to comply with their con.
8 tracts, and where persons who had pro-
. vided and supplied work anu materials