Skip to main content
· 11/30/1896

Prairie State Bank v. United States

Citations

  • 164 U.S. 227
  • 17 S. Ct. 142
  • 41 L. Ed. 412
  • 1896 U.S. LEXIS 1852
  • 32 Ct. Cl. 614

Syllabus

<p>S. contracted with the United States, in 1S88, to erect a custom-house at Galveston. II. was his surety on a bond to the United States for the faithful performance of that contract. The contract gave the government a right to retain a part of the price until the work should be finished. In consideration of advances made, and to be made, by a bank, S. gave it in 1890, written authority to receive from the United States the Anal contract payment so reserved. The Treasury declined to recognize this authority, but consented, on the request of the contractor, to forward, when due, a check for the final payment to the representative of the bank. Later S. defaulted in the performance of his contract, and H., as surety, without knowledge of what had takeu place between the bank; the contractor and the Treasury, assumed performance of the contract obligations, and completed the work, disbursing, in so doing, without reimbursement, an amount in excess of the reserved final payment. The bank and H., each by a separate action, sought to recover that reserved sum from the government. The cases being heard together it is Held, that, a claim against the government not being transferable, the rights of the parties are equitable only, and the equity, if any, of the bank in the reserved fund, being acquired in 1890, was subordinate to the equity of H. acquired in 1888. •</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • explaining that person acting “on compulsion, to save himself” is not a volunteer for purposes of equitable subrogation
  • recognizing surety's subrogation rights as \elementary.\
  • recognizing surety’s subrogation rights as “elementary.”
  • change by principal parties to underlying contract without surety’s consent causes discharge of surety
  • surety’s subrogation rights took precedence over bank’s rights arising from assignment from contractor because the right of subrogation relates back to, and is viewed in equity as having come into existence, when the suretyship obligation was first established

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: White, After Stating the Case

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced 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.