Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractplaintiffstatuteappeal

contractplaintiffdefendantstatuteappealwill

Related Cases

Architectural Decorating Co. v. National Sur. Co., 115 Minn. 382, 132 N.W. 289

Facts

On October 8, 1908, Henricksen entered into a contract with school district No. 39 for the erection of a high school building, with the National Surety Company providing a bond for payment of claims for labor and materials. The Architectural Decorating Company furnished labor and materials valued at $1,050 between July 16 and August 16, 1909, but was not paid. The plaintiff served a written notice of claim on March 8, 1910, after the 1909 amendment to the law was enacted, which is the crux of the dispute regarding the sufficiency of the notice.

At the time of the commencement of this action, Henricksen had not completed the contract for the erection of the high school building, and the building had not been accepted by the school district. Before beginning this action, the plaintiff, on March 8, 1910, served a written notice on the defendant surety company and also on Henricksen, specifying the nature and amount of its claim and the date of furnishing the last item.

Issue

The sole question involved upon this appeal is the sufficiency of the notice given on March 8, 1910.

The sufficiency of the notice so given on March 8, 1910, is the sole question involved upon this appeal.

Rule

Chapter 413, G. L. 1909 (Rev. Laws Supp. 1909, § 4539), changing the requirement as to notice of claims upon bonds of public contractors, affects the remedy provided for the enforcement of such bonds and not the obligation thereof.

Chapter 413, G. L. 1909 (Rev. Laws Supp. 1909, s 4539), changing the requirement as to notice of claims upon bonds of public contractors, affects the remedy provided for the enforcement of such bonds and not the obligation thereof, and is applicable to claims arising subsequent to its enactment upon bonds given prior to its enactment.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether the 1909 amendment applied to bonds executed prior to its passage. It concluded that the amendment did not impair the obligation of the bond but merely changed the procedure for enforcing it. The notice served by the plaintiff was timely under the new law, which was applicable to claims arising after its enactment, thus allowing the plaintiff to enforce the bond.

The 1909 amendment, by its terms, does not exclude from its operation bonds executed prior to its passage. Being on its face general in its application, it will be construed to apply to bonds executed before, as well as those executed after, its passage, unless such construction would render the statute invalid because of the resulting impairment of the obligation of contracts entered into prior to its passage.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the plaintiff, determining that the notice given was sufficient under the amended statute.

Affirmed.

Who won?

The Architectural Decorating Company prevailed in the case because the court found that the notice served was sufficient under the amended law, allowing them to enforce their claim against the surety company.

The court's final decision or holding in 1–2 sentences.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Oltarsh v. Aetna Ins. Co., 15 N.Y.2d 111, 204 N.E.2d 622, 256 N.Y.S.2d 577

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234, 122 S.Ct. 1389, 152 L.Ed.2d 403, 30 Media L. Rep. 1673, 02 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3211, 2002 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4033, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 187

Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429, 88 S.Ct. 664, 19 L.Ed.2d 683

Humphreys v. Tann, 487 F.2d 666

Consolidated Gold Fields PLC v. Minorco, S.A., 871 F.2d 252, 57 USLW 2565, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,342, 1989-1 Trade Cases P 68,500