Philadelphia v. Harry C. Nichols Co.
Citations
- 214 Pa. 265
- 63 A. 886
- 1906 Pa. LEXIS 639
Syllabus
<p>Municipalities — Contractors—Bonds to protect subcontractors and material men.</p> <p>Where a contractor’s bond to secure subcontractors and material men, required by city ordinance, has been voluntarily given, it may be enforced according to its terms, although it exceeds the requirements of the ordinance.</p> <p>A city ordinance provided that contractors for public work should execute a bond to pay all persons supplying them “with labor or materials, whether as subcontractors or otherwise, in the prosecution of the work provided for in such contracts.” The ordinance authorized anyone who had furnished “labor and materials, either as a subcontractor or otherwise,” to bring suit on the bond in the name of the city to his use. The condition of such a bond was to pay “any and all persons, any and all sums of money which may be due, for labor and material supplied or performed in and about the said work.” The contractor and the subcontractor for bricks both became financially embarrassed, and a material man of the subcontractor continued to furnish bricks to parties who were carrying on the original contracts who had an interest to do so. Suit was brought by the material man against the contractor, the surety in the bond, and the subcontractor. Another person was by amendment made a codefendant. Neither this person nor the subcontractor were partners of the contractor, and the surety was not charged as a surety for a partnership. The court amended the record by striking out the name of the subcontractor, and of the-additional codefendant, as parties defendant, and a judgment was obtained against the contractor and the surety. Held, (1) that the bond was not broader than the purpose and scope of the ordinance, and could be enforced according to its terms; (2) that the surety was not relieved by reason of the work being carried on under the original contract by one having an interest in seeing that the contract was executed; (3) that the amendment of the record was pr
Judges: Brown, Elkin, Fell, Mestrezat, Mitchell, Potter, Stewart
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.