United States v. Di Sandro

D. Connecticut

United States v. Di Sandro

88 F. Supp. 970, 1949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1942

CourtDistrict Court, D. Connecticut

DecidedJanuary 4, 1949

DocketCiv. A. No. 1300

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 88 F. Supp. 970 (United States v. Di Sandro) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Di Sandro, 88 F. Supp. 970, 1949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1942 (D. Conn. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

SMITH, District Judge.

Aetna’s motion to dismiss the second count as to it as surety on a Miller Act, 40 U.S.C.A. § 270a et seq., bond appears to be well taken. The second count is founded in part on negligence and cannot be said to be for material and labor furnished.

We would distinguish this situation from the Purity Paint Products case, U. S. ex rel. Purity Paint Products Corporation v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., D.C.1944, 56 F.Supp. 431, however. We do not here have the question whether the remedy of the seller chosen in that case is no longer a claim for material or labor furnished because in form a “breach of contract” rather than a' “goods sold and delivered” action.

There is no necessity for passing on that question here.

The motion to dismiss the second count as to .the defendant Aetna is granted.

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