Court Opinion

ID: 9692201
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 15:46:40.998837+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:33.035538
License: Public Domain

Brown, C. J.
(dissenting). I am sorry that I cannot agree with the majority of the court and must respectfully dissent for the following reasons:
It appears to me to be indisputable that this contract for the construction of these student housing units “pertains” to a public work or improvement and therefore requires a bond securing payment by the contractor for material and labor. Sec. 289.16, Stats.
The contractor did furnish a bond, — the one written by appellant, American Automobile Insurance Company. As the majority opinion says, the statute designates officials who should approve the bond in the event that governmental units or public boards or bodies are the entities with whom the principal building contractor has contracted • for the erection of the public work or improvement.
It appears to be conceded that the building corporation is a private corporation, is not an agency of the state, and is not a public board or body. The conclusion seems to me inescapable that none of the officials designated to approve bonds have any statutory authorization to approve this bond. But that does not obviate the necessity of the principal contractor’s giving bond since the contract is for a public work or improvement and sec. 289.16, Stats., commands that such a bond be given. All that happens is that the legislature for its own good reasons, or for no reason, did not say that the required bond must be approved by someone when the public work or improvement is contracted for by a private corporation.
The public work or improvement required a bond, per sec. 289.16 (1), Stats. The bond was given. No approval *412was given but the statute did not require that it should be since the building corporation was not a governmental unit or a public board or body. I do not see any failure to comply with any of the demands of sec. 289.16. I consider this a good bond under the terms of sec. 289.16 and that statute applies.
The obligations of the bond are specified in the statute and sec. 289.16 (2) gives an interested party a right to maintain an action on the bond within one year after the completion of the contract. Plaintiff-respondent did not bring its action within that time. I consider its action should have been dismissed.
Mr. Justice Wilkie joins in this dissent.