Court Opinion

ID: 7170366
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-24 16:25:44.886563+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:15:42.311898
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
PROVOSTY, J.
The mistake which the learned counsel for the surety company make is in not distinguishing between the owner, between whom and the materialman there is no contractual relation, on whose part there is no liability except that created by law against, or without, his consent, and the surety company who has voluntarily entered into a contract to pay the materialmen in case the contractor does not, and has received a consideration for thus engaging itself.
In not one decision of this court has it ever been held that the surety was released by nonservice of an account upon the owner; and this court could not possibly so hold unless prepared to hold that the contractor also is released, for the statute in express terms provides that:
“The surety herein shall be limited to such defenses only as the principal on the bond can make.”
This express provision cannot be ignored; and, surely, no one would say that the contractor was released from paying the materialmen by the failure of the latter to serve an account upon the owner.
The learned counsel of the surety company seem to think that this statute was enacted in the interest of the surety on the contractor’s bond, whereas the statute expressly declares that the purpose has been simply to require that the bond be given.
Why the law should be solicitous for the protection of surety companies, the learned counsel would, we imagine, be embarrassed to suggest any reason.
The decree heretofore handed down herein is reinstated and made the final judgment of this court.
SOMMERVILLE, J., concurs.