McWilliams v. United States

138 F. Supp. 863, 134 Ct. Cl. 330, 1956 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 82
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedMarch 6, 1956
DocketNo. 49439
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 138 F. Supp. 863 (McWilliams v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McWilliams v. United States, 138 F. Supp. 863, 134 Ct. Cl. 330, 1956 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 82 (cc 1956).

Opinion

LittletoN, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

In this case the defendant admits that there is due the plaintiff, G. M. McWilliams, Trustee in Bankruptcy, the sum of $6,288, representing the balance — unused balance — on the contract made September 6,1943, with one F. T. Newton for the construction of a building at Tallahassee, Florida. The facts relative to the contract, the work thereon and the default of contractor Newton on November 5,1943, are shown in findings 4 and 5. The only defense is the statute of limitations.

The commissioner of this court has made detailed findings on the stipulation of the parties, supplemented by evidence offered by the parties. These findings are fully supported by the record and we approve and adopt them.

[331]*331The petition herein was filed on January 13, 1950. The defendant says that inasmuch as defendant completed the contract work on or before January 1, 1944, at a cost of $1,334.88, and thereafter made a determination of such costs, the cause of action accrued on January 1,1944.

The uncontroverted facts show the defendant did not advise the contractor or his representative or the use plaintiff, National Surety Corporation, which had paid $3,811.43 to various creditors of the contractor under a payment bond, of the cost of completion and the balance due from the Government on the contract price until after January 14, 1944. See findings 15-24. The National Surety Corporation was diligent in its efforts to ascertain from the proper Government officials the cost of completion and the balance due xmder the contract, if any, but was unable to get this information prior to January 14, 1944. It appears from the evidence that neither the Trustee in Bankruptcy nor the National Surety Corporation was able to ascertain from defendant the cost of completion and the balance due until a date which was within a period of six years prior to the filing of the petition herein. The Trustee was appointed in December 1945.

The National Surety Corporation was not in a position to bring suit on January 1,1944, or prior to January 14,1944, as-claimed by defendant. Nor was the defaulting contractor Newton in a position to do so.

The contract and the circumstances obviously required the Government officials to determine the cost of completion and the balance due under the contract to the original contractor, or the National Surety Corporation, or the Trustee, and to notify the proper party or parties to that effect. They did not do so. The claim was not, therefore, barred by the statute when the petition was filed in this court.

The plaintiff, G. M. McWilliams, Trustee in Bankruptcy, is therefore entitled to recover $6,288, of which sum the amount of $3,811 is for the “use plaintiff,” the National Surety Corporation, as hereinbefore stated and as shown in the findings. See findings 8 and 25.

[332]*332Judgment will be entered in favor of the plaintiff for $6,288.

It is so ordered.

Laramore, Judge; Madden, Judge; Whitaker, Judge; and JONES, Chief Judge, concur.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The court, having considered the evidence, the briefs and argument of counsel, and the report of Commissioner Paul EL McMurray, makes the following findings of fact:

1. Plaintiff, G. M. McWilliams, was appointed Trustee in Bankruptcy for F. T. Newton, general contractor, Hatties-burg, Mississippi, by order of the United States District Court, Hattiesburg Division, Southern District of Mississippi, in December 1945.

2. On September 6, 1943, F. T. Newton and the United States, acting through the contracting officer, War Department, entered into Contract No. W-1452-E (S. C. IV)-4, whereby F. T. Newton was to furnish the materials, and perform the work for the construction on or before October 15, 1943, of an addition to Headquarters Building, Dale Mabry Field, Tallahassee, Florida, for the sum of $7,622.88.

3. The use plaintiff, National Surety Corporation, executed a payment bond on the contract for F. T. Newton in the sum of $3,811.43.

4. F. T. Newton entered upon the performance of the com tract but failed to complete the performance of the contract on or before October 15,1943. Accordingly, the defendant, under date of November 5, 1943, terminated the contract pursuant to the provisions of Article 9 thereof and undertook completion of the construction contemplated by the contract.

5. On or prior to January 1,1944, the defendant completed all work required for the satisfactory final accomplishment of the contract at a cost to the defendant of $1,334.88.

6. The amount earned on the contract by F. T. Newton at the time of his default and the unpaid balance due on the contract after deducting the cost of completion by the dm fendant is the sum of $6,288.00.

[333]*3337. After the default of F. T. Newton as aforesaid, various persons, firms and corporations, who furnished labor or material to the said Newton under the contract, made claim for settlement of their accounts under the payment bond of National Surety Corporation.

8. On February 18,1944, the National Surety Corporation deposited the sum of $3,811.43 under the payment bond in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, in an action instituted in that court by various creditors upon the payment bond. A final decree in that action, dated August 7, 1944, released and discharged the National Surety Corporation from any and all liability to the various creditors by virtue of the payment bond and a pro rata distribution was directed in favor of the creditors.

9. On November 9, 1943, the National Surety Corporation filed a Complaint for Injunction and Receiver in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia seeking to enjoin the Treasurer of the United States, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of War, and others, from making any payments due under contracts entered into by F. T. Newton with defendant, including Contract No. W-1452-E (S. C. IV)-4, and requesting that a receiver be appointed to obtain and receive any balances due from defendant under the contracts. The aforesaid case, Civil Action No. 21947, was dismissed on January 15, 1945, for lack of prosecution pursuant to Civil Rule number 13, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

10. Counsel for National Surety Corporation advised the Law and Claim Department of said corporation, under date of January 19,1944, that a call was made on.the Post Engineer at Dale Mabry Field regarding the instant contract and that “The cost to the government for completing the contract was $1,334.88.” National Surety Corporation has been unable to ascertain the specific date on which the call was made on the Post Engineer to obtain the cost information.

11. On December 22,1943, Major G. R. McCauley, Corps of Engineers, Headquarters Fourth Service Command, Office of the Commanding General, Atlanta, Georgia, wrote to the Commanding Officer, Dale Mabry Field, Tallahassee, Florida, forwarding a copy of memorandum from the Office [334]*334of the Judge Advocate General, Washington, D. C., requesting the preparation of a report on the said contract.

12. On January 1, 1944, Major Lacey F.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Henry Products Co. v. United States
180 Ct. Cl. 928 (Court of Claims, 1967)
Copco Steel & Engineering Co. v. The United States
341 F.2d 590 (Court of Claims, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
138 F. Supp. 863, 134 Ct. Cl. 330, 1956 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 82, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcwilliams-v-united-states-cc-1956.