Source: http://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/240/214/case.php
Timestamp: 2017-12-13 18:46:55
Document Index: 478803814

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3', '§ 2', '§ 271', '§ 2', '§ 236', '§ 4']

This action was brought by subcontractors under the Act of August 13, 1894 (c. 280, 28 Stat. 278), as amended by the Act of February 24, 1905 (c. 778, 33 Stat. 811), in the name of the United States to recover upon a contractor's bond. The contract was for the construction of a post office building in Aiken, South Carolina (Act of March 30, 1908, c. 228, 35 Stat. 526, 528), and the Illinois Surety Company (plaintiff in error) was the surety. The summons and complaint were filed on March 4, 1913. Motion to dismiss was made on September 22, 1913, upon the ground that the complaint did not allege that there had been a completion and final settlement of the contract between the contractor and the United States, or that there had been such completion and settlement more than six months, and within one year prior to the commencement of the action. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
It also appeared that no action had been instituted by the United States upon the bond within the six months allowed by the statute. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The district court gave judgment for amounts found to be due to those for whose benefit the action was brought, and to certain interveners, and this judgment was affirmed by the circuit court of appeals, 215 F.3d 4. The contentions presented are: (1) that the action was instituted prematurely, (2) that the amendment of the complaint was improperly allowed, (3) that there was no right of action at law, and (4) that the court erred in giving judgment for the Carolina Electrical Company, one of the subcontractors.
In Texas Portland Cement Co. v. McCord, * 233 U. S. 157, we said that this act created a new right of action upon terms named, and hence that an action brought by creditors before six months had expired from the time of the "completion and final settlement of the contract" could not be sustained. In the present case, the plaintiff in error insists that there was no final settlement within the meaning of the statute prior to the issue of the check chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The pivotal words are not "final payment," but "final chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
settlement," and, in view of the significance of the latter term in administrative practice, it is hardly likely that it would have been used had it been intended to denote payment. See United States v. Illinois Surety Co., 195 F.3d 6, 309; United States v. Bailey, 207 F.7d 2, 784; United States v. Robinson, supra; United States v. Massachusetts Bonding Co., 215 F.2d 1, 244; United States v. Illinois Surety Co., 226 F.6d 3, 662. The word "settlement," in connection with public transactions and accounts, has been used from the beginning to describe administrative determination of the amount due. By the Act of September 2, 1789, c. 12 (1 Stat. 65), establishing the Treasury Department, the Comptroller was charged with the duty of examining "all accounts settled by the auditor." (§ 3.) And it was made the duty of the auditor to receive "all public accounts and after examination to certify the balance," subject to the provision that any person whose account should be so audited might appeal to the Comptroller "against such settlement." The Act of March 3, 1809, c. 28, § 2 (2 Stat. 536), gave authority to the Comptroller to direct the auditor forthwith "to audit and settle any particular account" which he was authorized to audit and settle, and "to report such settlement" for his revision and final decision. (See Rev.Stat. § 271.) By the Act of March 3, 1817, c. 45, § 2 (3 Stat. 366), it was provided that
This provision was carried into § 236 of the Revised Statutes. The words "settled and adjusted" were taken to mean the determination in the Treasury Department for administrative purposes of the state of the account and the amount due. See 2 Op.Atty.Gen. 518, 625, 629, 630. Referring chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
and, further, that, "when suspended items are finally settled, a revision may be had as in the case of the original settlement." By the Act of May 28, 1896, c. 252, § 4 (29 Stat. 140, 179), the Secretary of the Treasury was directed to make report annually to Congress of such officers as were found "upon final settlement of their accounts" to have been indebted to the government, chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
In the present case, the construction of the building was in charge of the Secretary of the Treasury and under the general supervision of the supervising architect. The Secretary of the Treasury was authorized to remit the whole or any part of the stipulated liquidated damages as in his discretion might be just and equitable. Act of chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
2. With respect to the amendment of the complaint, it is apparent that, as there was an existing right of action under the statute at the time the suit was brought, the case was not within the decision in Texas Cement Co. v. McCord, supra. No new or different cause of action was alleged in the amended complaint. The Court merely permitted the defective statement of the existing right to be corrected by the addition of appropriate allegations, chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
In the circuit and district courts and in the circuit courts of appeals, while it seems that objection has rarely been made, there has been almost complete uniformity in treating the creditors' action under the Act of 1905 as one at law. See United States v. Winkler, 162 F.3d 7; Stilzer v. United States, 182 F.5d 3; United States v. Boomer, 183 F.7d 6; United States v. Illinois Surety Co., 195 F.3d 6; Baker Contract Co. v. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
United States, 204 F.3d 0; Eberhart v. United States, 204 F.8d 4; United States v. Bailey, 207 F.7d 3; Vermont Marble Co. v. National Surety Co., 213 F.4d 9; United States v. Robinson, 214 F. 38; United States v. Massachusetts Bonding Co., 215 F.2d 1; United States v. Emery, 225 F.2d 7; United States v. Illinois Surety Co., 226 F.6d 3. It was expressly held to be an action at law in United States v. Stannard, 207 Fed.198, 202. The contrary conclusion was reached in United States v. Wells, 203 F.1d 6, 147; Illinois Surety Co. v. United States, 212 F.1d 6, 139, and United States v. Scheurman, 218 F.9d 5, 919. The point was raised on rehearing in United States v. Illinois Surety Co., but, as it came too late, it was not decided.
In this respect, the provision is substantially the same as that contained in the Act of 1894, and the obligation in favor of the materialmen and laborers has been held to be a distinct obligation. Guaranty Co. v. Pressed Brick Co., 191 U. S. 416, 191 U. S. 423-425; Hill v. Am. Surety Co., 200 U. S. 197, 200 U. S. 201-202. It is an obligation for the payment of money to the persons described, which they are entitled to enforce. The nature of the obligation is not changed by the fact that there is to be but one action. If the United States brings the action, the persons described are entitled to be made parties, and "to have their rights and claims adjudicated in such action, and judgment rendered chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
4. The plaintiff in error contends that the court erred in giving judgment in favor of the Carolina Electrical Company. The record shows that among those named as the persons instituting the action was the "Electrical chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
In this we think, the court erred. The Carolina Electrical Company was not one of the plaintiffs, and there was no intervention on its behalf. The trial court, in its findings, sets forth the interventions of certain other parties and states that no more interventions appear to have been filed in the cause. It is true, of course, that the real party in interest who is entitled to enforce the cause of action may be substituted as plaintiff. See McDonald v. Nebraska, 101 F.1d 1, 178. But the present case is not one of misnomer, or of a nominal plaintiff for whom the real party in interest is substituted, or indeed of any proper substitution. The plaintiff, the Electrical Engineering chanroblesvirtualawlibrary