United Lumber and Supply Co. v. MacDonald

Connecticut Superior Court

United Lumber and Supply Co. v. MacDonald

3 Conn. Super. Ct. 15, 3 Conn. Supp. 15, 1935 Conn. Super. LEXIS 83

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedAugust 17, 1935

DocketFile #46633

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 3 Conn. Super. Ct. 15 (United Lumber and Supply Co. v. MacDonald) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United Lumber and Supply Co. v. MacDonald, 3 Conn. Super. Ct. 15, 3 Conn. Supp. 15, 1935 Conn. Super. LEXIS 83 (Colo. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

ELLS, J.

Instead of proving that the claim was filed within sixty days the plaintiff has conclusively shown that it was not so filed. Nor was it proved that the plaintiff was the owner of the claim sued on. Furthermore, the State in its contract expressly prohibited this kind of a subcontract, and actually did not know DiMauro was a subcontractor. It had every reason to believe, and did believe, that he was one of Di Martino’s men. To hold that the State cannot protect itself by contract from, or provide against, subcontractors it does not wish to employ and expressly refuses to employ, is a ruling this Court would not care to make.

*16 There is an allegation that the State was protected by a bond conditioned for the faithful performance of the contract according to its provisions. One of its provisions excluded Di Mauro.

The Statute, 1113 B, giving the right to file a claim against the State, gives it to “any person having any claim for ma' terials and labor used in the execution of such contract.” This plaintiff, in my opinion, is not such a person.

Assuming, without'deciding, that the Statute gives a right to sue the State, I conclude that this plaintiff is not one to whom such a right was given, and that if he was, he has not fulfilled the requirements.

Judgment is for the defendant.

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

ELLS, J.

Instead of proving that the claim was filed within sixty days the plaintiff has conclusively shown that it was not so filed. Nor was it proved that the plaintiff was the owner of the claim sued on. Furthermore, the State in its contract expressly prohibited this kind of a subcontract, and actually did not know DiMauro was a subcontractor. It had every reason to believe, and did believe, that he was one of Di Martino’s men. To hold that the State cannot protect itself by contract from, or provide against, subcontractors it does not wish to employ and expressly refuses to employ, is a ruling this Court would not care to make.

*16 There is an allegation that the State was protected by a bond conditioned for the faithful performance of the contract according to its provisions. One of its provisions excluded Di Mauro.

The Statute, 1113 B, giving the right to file a claim against the State, gives it to “any person having any claim for ma' terials and labor used in the execution of such contract.” This plaintiff, in my opinion, is not such a person.

Assuming, without'deciding, that the Statute gives a right to sue the State, I conclude that this plaintiff is not one to whom such a right was given, and that if he was, he has not fulfilled the requirements.

Judgment is for the defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Conn. Super. Ct. 15, 3 Conn. Supp. 15, 1935 Conn. Super. LEXIS 83, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-lumber-and-supply-co-v-macdonald-connsuperct-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack