Molin v. Anderson

Citations

• 118 Wash. 208
• 203 P. 8
• 1922 Wash. LEXIS 611

Syllabus

<p>Principal and Surety (8) — Liability—Fraud of Obligee — Evidence — Sufficiency. The obligee under a building contractor’s bond is not chargeable with fraud in failing to notify the bonding company that the contractor was in default on his contract and had already been paid a considerable sum thereon, it being the bonding company’s privilege to inquire, and not the obligee’s duty to volunteer the information.</p> <p>Same (8) — Liability—Fraud of Obligee — Knowledge of Facts as Constituting Fraud. Where a contractor’s bond was given to protect the owner under a contract calling for the erection of four dwelling houses, the fact that the building contract recited that all the houses were on one street, while in fact one of them was on another street in the same block, would not constitute a defense against the bond where the bonding company by investigation could readily have learned the fact, it further appearing that the surety was not misled to its injury, since the total cost was not increased.</p> <p>Same (19) — Extent of Liability — Performance—Building Contracts. The fact that a contractor’s bond was written after the work on the houses covered thereby had been commenced would not affect liability under the bond, where it was conditioned that the contractor should perform the whole contract and not a part of it.</p> <p>Same (40) — Discharge of Surety — Failure to Give Notice. Notice to a surety on a building contractor’s bond of his abandonment of the contract, given by the obligee twenty-three days after learning thereof, is within a reasonable time, under a provision of the bond calling for formal notice immediately after knowledge of the default of the contractor, where the surety already had knowledge of the default and there is no showing of injury or damage because formal notice was not sooner given.</p>