TITLE GUARANTY & SURETY COMPANY
v.
UNITED STATES, TO THE USE OF HARLAN & HOLLINGSWORTH

U.S. | 1913-05-12
No. 530
228 U.S. 567 Supreme Court of the United States (1913) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 57 L. Ed. 969 · 33 S. Ct. 614 · 1913 U.S. LEXIS 2398 · SCDB 1912-189
Cited by 6 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

A contractor's surety company challenged the jurisdiction of a federal circuit court in an action brought by a subcontractor on a bond executed in 1904 under the Contractor's Bond Act of 1894, arguing that an amendatory act of 1905 required the suit to be brought in the district where the contract was to be performed. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's jurisdiction, holding that because the bond and underlying contracts were executed before the 1905 amendment, the amendment applied only prospectively and did not govern disputes arising from work performed under pre-amendment agreements.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice White

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action upon a contractor’s bond executed on May 24, 1904, under the provisions of the act of Congress of August 13, 1894, c. 280, 28 Stat. 278, entitled “An Act, for the protection of persons furnishing material and labor for the construction of public works.” The question for decision is whether the court below had jurisdiction of the cause.

The bond; was executed by the Surety Company in connection with a contract entered into by the Scofield Company with the United States for the erection of a dry-dock at the League Island Navy Yard. The Harlan & Hollingsworth corporation took over a subcontract and, constructed a caisson for the dock.' To recover a balance owing, the corporation resorted to its remedy on the bond. The bond and various contracts were made prior to 1905. The above-mentioned act of August 13, 1894, contains no direction respecting where suit upon the bond of, a contractor shall be brought by a subcontractor or what courts shall take jurisdiction of the. right of action it-creates. As the principal office of the defendant Surety Company, was located within the district, this action was commenced in the court below as authorized by § 5 of an act of Congress also approved August 13, 1894, c. 282, 28 Stat. 279, regulating surety. companies which execute bonds required by the laws of the United States.

The Scofield Company did not defend. The Surety Company, however, entered a plea to the jurisdiction of the court, contending that as the work done and materials and labor furnished by the Harlan & Hollingsworth corporation were done and furnished after the passage of an act approved February 24, 1905, c. 778, 33 Stat. 811, amendatory of the first-mentioned act. of 1894, and making important changes in the rights of a subcontractor, the provisions of the amendatory act governed and the action should have been cominenced in the district in which the contract was to be performed and executed. A demurrer to the plea, was sustained, and for want of an affidavit of defense judgment was entered in favor of the Harlan & Hollingsworth Company, and the case was brought directly here on the question of jurisdiction.

The Circuit Court was clearly right in upholding its jurisdiction. As already stated, the contract between the United States and the original cohtractor, the bond of the Surety Company and the contract with the plaintiff .were all executed prior to the passage,of the amendatory act. To hold, that the latter act applied, therefore, would be to construe the act as having a retroactive effect. It has, however, been definitely decided that the act .was intended to have merely a prospective operation. U. S. Fidelity Co. v. Struthers Wells Co., 209 U. S. 306; Davidson Bros. Marble Co. v. Gibson, 213 U. S. 10. The decisions lend no support to the cpntention now urged on behalf of the plaintiff in error that Congress intended the act of 1905 to be retroactive in all cases where the work was done after the passage of the amendment.

Judgment affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Ill. Sur. Co. v. The John Davis Co., 244 U.S. 376 (U.S. 1917)
    …e questions involved were whether suit was brought within the statutory period. In United States Fidelity Co. v. Kenyon, 204 U. S. 349; United States v. Congress Construction Co., 222 U. S. 199; Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. Harlan & Hollingsworth, 228 U. S. 567, the questions raised were as to the jurisdiction of the court.…
  • United States ex rel. Dover Elevator Co. v. Gen. Ins. Co. OF Am., 339 F.2d 194 (6th Cir. 1964)
    …ter the last material was furnished, which was timely under the amendment. It is settled that the Act in force at the time of the execution of the contract controls. Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. United States to the Use of Harlan & Hollingsworth, 228 U.S. 567, 33 S.Ct. 614, 57 L.Ed. 969 (1913). The limitation provided in the Act was not to be treated as an ordinary statute of limitation. The Act created a new right and prescribed the remedy therefor. The filing of suit within the limitation period was a…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw