The Geis Construction Co., and United States Guarantee Company v. The United States of America, for the Use of Tom Igel Company

243 F.2d 568, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 4637
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedApril 24, 1957
Docket13021
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 243 F.2d 568 (The Geis Construction Co., and United States Guarantee Company v. The United States of America, for the Use of Tom Igel Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
The Geis Construction Co., and United States Guarantee Company v. The United States of America, for the Use of Tom Igel Company, 243 F.2d 568, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 4637 (6th Cir. 1957).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellee furnished materials and labor to a subcontractor employed on a government project. The appellant was the prime contractor. The subcontractor went into receivership, and the appel-lee thereafter filed the present action under the Miller Act, 40 U.S.C.A. § 270b to recover the balance owing for labor and materials. This appeal is from the district court’s judgment against the appellant general contractor for the amount owed appellee under its contract with the subcontractor.

Appellant contends (1) that the ap-pellee failed to file his claim with appellant within ninety days after performing the last work under the contract, thus losing the right to recover under the statute, and (2) that the district court erred in refusing to admit evidence to show that the contract price exceeded the reasonable value of the materials furnished and services performed by the ap-pellee.

Whether the appellee performed work under its subcontract within ninety days before it filed its claim was a question answered in the affirmative by a jury, upon a special interrogatory framed by the appellant. The jury’s finding was supported by substantial evidence.

It was not error for the district court to exclude evidence of the actual value of the services performed and to enter judgment for the amount due under the contract, in the absence of any showing of fraud or collusion between the appellee and the subcontractor.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
243 F.2d 568, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 4637, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-geis-construction-co-and-united-states-guarantee-company-v-the-ca6-1957.