New Jersey Fidelity & Plate Glass Insurance v. General Electric Co.

168 S.E. 425, 160 Va. 342, 1933 Va. LEXIS 214
CourtSupreme Court of Virginia
DecidedMarch 16, 1933
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 168 S.E. 425 (New Jersey Fidelity & Plate Glass Insurance v. General Electric Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
New Jersey Fidelity & Plate Glass Insurance v. General Electric Co., 168 S.E. 425, 160 Va. 342, 1933 Va. LEXIS 214 (Va. 1933).

Opinion

Browning, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The General Electric Company instituted an action in the Circuit Court of the city of Norfolk against the New Jersey Fidelity and Plate Glass Insurance Company to recover certain attorney’s fees and interest aggregating the sum of $3,730.84. All matters of fact and law were submitted to the court without the intervention of a jury [344]*344and judgment was rendered in favor of the General Electric Company. The correctness of that judgment is before this court upon a writ of error.

The facts, most of which are not in dispute, may be stated as follows: The Spear Engineers, a Virginia corporation, operated a ship-building plant in the city of Portsmouth, Virginia, and on August 14, 1928, entered into a contract with the city of Portsmouth and the county of Norfolk, which were the owners and operators of the Norfolk County Ferries, for the construction of a ferry boat. Under the terms of the contract the builder was to be paid as the work on the boat progressed. The contract provided that the boat should be kept clear of all liens and claims of any kind. It also provided that the contractor or builder should enter into a bond, with good and sufficient surety, to secure the faithful performance of the contract, and to protect and save harmless all subcontractors, laborers and others who performed labor or furnished materials in and about the construction of the boat. Such a bond was duly executed on August 14, 1928, and the plaintiff in error, a surety company, became surety thereon.

On January 25, 1929, the contractor, the Spear Engineers, contracted with the General Electric Company, the defendant in error, for the purchase of certain electric propulsion motors and equipment for installation in the boat. It was provided in this contract that the title to the motors and equipment should be retained by the General Electric Company until they were fully paid for. The contract was recorded in the office of the clerk of the Corporation Court of Norfolk on March 13, 1929, and in the office of the clerk of the Circuit Court of Norfolk county on May 31, 1929. It was conceded that the contract for the reservation of title was not recorded in the proper clerk’s office and therefore it was not effective for its purposes, except as between the parties thereto and the city of Portsmouth and. the county of Norfolk which entities otherwise had notice thereof.

[345]*345The General Electric Company furnished and delivered to the Spear Engineers equipment and material, under the contract, to the amount of $19,361.18, a part of which, $6,600.00, was paid in cash, leaving a balance of $12,761.18.

The Spear Engineers, under its contract with the owners, was to receive the third payment on the construction work, $42,120.00, when the boat was sixty per cent completed. The requisite percentage of completion was not attainable unless there was included in the computation the materials and equipment furnished by the General Electric Company and which was then on the shipyard.

The General Electric Company was concerned about the payment of the balance due it which was evidenced by two notes of equal amount, which were past due, and through its legal department, wrote to the city of Portsmouth on May 7, 1929, asking that it and the county of Norfolk set aside a sufficient sum to pay such balance due by the Spear Engineers to be taken or deducted from the next payment to be made by them to the Spear Engineers on their contract. In this letter the General Electric Company made claim to the electrical equipment by reason of its reservation of title thereto. Pursuant to this letter the equipment referred to was embraced in the computation and thereby the sixty per cent of completion of the boat was reached and the third payment became due the contractor. This payment was made, after deducting therefrom the $12,761.18 due by the contractor to the General Electric Company and it was segregated and set apart as requested by being placed in the hands of C. U. Freund, superintendent of the ferries, for the benefit of the General Electric Company. It was later deposited in the American “National Bank of Portsmouth to the credit of “Chas. U. Freund, Supt. Special Account—General Electric Lien. 6-1-29. Checks as follows:

“$ 12,761.18 182.88
“$ 12,944.06.”

[346]*346The Spear Engineers received the residue' of the third payment made by the owners and consented to the deduction of the full amount and interest due by it to the General Electric Company and since that time it has asserted no claim to or interest in said sum so deducted and set apart. Thereafter the General Electric Company made no claim or demand upon the Spear Engineers or the ferries for payment of the said amount. It remained in bank in the account referred to, earmarked and segregated, from June 1, 1929, until October 7, 1929. The General Electric Company, of course, had actual knowledge of the deduction and the deposit of the fund in the Portsmouth bank from the time it was made.

The Spear Engineers wa,s adjudicated a bankrupt on October 7, 1929, and the trustee in bankruptcy claimed the said fund as a part of the bankrupt’s assets or estate, and he was successful before the referee in bankruptcy, but upon appeal to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the judgment of the referee was set aside, the court holding that the fund was not a part of the estate of the bankrupt and upon appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit the judgment of the District Court was affirmed. See Stickney v. General Electric Co., 44 Fed. (2nd) 362, 365. There the court said: “* * * In accordance with this arrangement, the fund was earmarked and in effect paid into the hands of the ferries for the account of the General Electric Company which had the right thereafter at all times to receive it. * * *” After the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals, the trustee paid over to the General Electric Company the $12,944.06, being the precise sum which had been set aside by the ferry owners at the request of the General Electric Company, with the consent of Spear Engineers, on June 1, 1929. It included interest to this date.

In prosecuting its claim before the referee and the courts above referred to the General Electric Company incurred attorney’s fees, expenses and loss of interest on the fund [347]*347from the date of the deposit to November 1, 1930, which aggregated the sum of $3,730.84. This, it claimed, it was entitled to collect from the surety company, the plaintiff in error, upon the bond of Spear Engineers.

The plaintiff in error was duly notified on November 5, 1929, of the bankruptcy of Spear Engineers and of the efforts of the General Electric Company to obtain the fund which had been set apart and it was invited to join in the litigation and warned that it was being prosecuted at its (the plaintiff in error) risk. To this it gave no heed and the matter was pursued to a successful conclusion by the General Electric Company alone.

The correspondence of the parties and the testimony of the agents of the General Electric Company show that it was aware of the fact that its debt was cared for in the manner above detailed.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
168 S.E. 425, 160 Va. 342, 1933 Va. LEXIS 214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-jersey-fidelity-plate-glass-insurance-v-general-electric-co-va-1933.