National Union Indemnity Company v. Kesk, Inc.

Fifth Circuit

National Union Indemnity Company v. Kesk, Inc.

341 F.2d 301

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 31, 1965

Docket21556

StatusPublished

This text of 341 F.2d 301 (National Union Indemnity Company v. Kesk, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

National Union Indemnity Company v. Kesk, Inc., 341 F.2d 301 (5th Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In this action a prime contractor seeks to enforce the surety bond of its defaulting subcontractor. Upon default of the subcontractor, the plaintiff-appellee became obligated to pay the bills of numerous materialmen, and it seeks reimbursement from the appellant on a Performance and Payment Bond given by the subcontractor. The district court, rejecting the surety’s contention that premature progress payments from the prime contractor to subcontractor released the surety’s obligation, rendered a judgment adverse to the surety, and it appeals.

Upon a review of the record and a consideration of all of the appellant’s contentions, we are convinced that the district court properly interpreted the contract and applied the appropriate legal principles. 224 F.Supp.’ 766 (W.D.La. 1963). We have- nothing to add to that opinion. The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

In this action a prime contractor seeks to enforce the surety bond of its defaulting subcontractor. Upon default of the subcontractor, the plaintiff-appellee became obligated to pay the bills of numerous materialmen, and it seeks reimbursement from the appellant on a Performance and Payment Bond given by the subcontractor. The district court, rejecting the surety’s contention that premature progress payments from the prime contractor to subcontractor released the surety’s obligation, rendered a judgment adverse to the surety, and it appeals.

Upon a review of the record and a consideration of all of the appellant’s contentions, we are convinced that the district court properly interpreted the contract and applied the appropriate legal principles. 224 F.Supp.’ 766 (W.D.La. 1963). We have- nothing to add to that opinion. The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

341 F.2d 301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-union-indemnity-company-v-kesk-inc-ca5-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack