Court Opinion

ID: 9687995
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:56:24.296184+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:33.967294
License: Public Domain

Boslaugi-i and Spencer, JJ.,
dissenting.
Under the facts in this case it is doubtful whether the informal understanding reached at the meeting of the representatives of the parties in Omaha on September 22, 1966, should be considered to be a “final settlement of the principal contract” within the meaning of section 52-118.02, R. R. S. 1943. However, it is unnecessary to decide that question because of the relationship between the plaintiff and United Bonding Insurance Company after the default of Dougherty.
The bonding company concedes that it completed the project under an assignment of the contract from Dougherty. Since it assumed the role of the principal contractor, its liability was not limited to the bond under the facts in this case.
In Southern Surety Co. v. Weaver Bros. (Tex. Civ. App., 1931), 35 S. W. 2d 255, affirmed 56 S. W. 2d 634 (.1933), a surety under the terms of its performance bond took over and completed a contract for the construction of a church when the contractor defaulted. The bond provided, in language similar to the case at bar, that the completing surety had an assignment to the rights of the contractor. The Texas court held that when the surety company took over the contract under the assignment,- it assumed all of the responsibilities of the contract and was liable to a materialman for material provided to the contractor before default even though the materialman did not file á mechanic’s lien within the statutory time.
McCown, J., joins in this dissent.