211 N.W. 834 | Minn. | 1927
Lead Opinion
On October 30, 1922, Evenson Utterberg, a copartnership, contracted with the Eveleth Elks Building Corporation for the construction of a building at Eveleth, Minnesota. At the same time the copartnership as principal and the defendant Fidelity Deposit *486 Company as surety, executed a bond to the Elks Corporation in the sum of $59,769, reciting that it was "for the use of the said Eveleth Elks Building Corporation and also for the use of all persons who may perform any work or labor, or furnish any skill, tools, machinery, or materials under, or for the purpose of, the contract hereinafter mentioned," etc. The bond was conditioned to be void "if the said contractor (Evenson Utterberg) shall and does pay, as they become due, all just claims for all work and labor performed, and all tools, machinery, skill and materials furnished for the completion of said contract, in accordance with its terms, and shall save the obligee named in this Bond harmless from all costs and charges that may accrue on account of the doing of the work specified in said contract," etc.
In May, 1923, the plaintiff furnished to Evenson Utterberg structural steel which was used in the building. They did not pay for it and in a suit on the bond the plaintiff recovered judgment for $2,749.78.
1. The bond was intended to give persons in the position of the plaintiff the right to maintain an action upon it. The language would be purposeless if this were not so. Similar language in a statutory bond was construed as of that effect in Horton v. Crowley Elec. Co.
2. Whether a third party beneficiary, situated as the plaintiff, can maintain an action against the surety is the only difficult question. We early adopted the doctrine of Lawrence v. Fox,
The property upon which the Elks Corporation building was built was subject to a right of lien in the plaintiff for the materials which it furnished. There was an inchoate right of lien. The Elks *487 Corporation could protect its property against a lien by a bond, and it did so in this case. It might desire to protect itself against a suit to enforce a lien resulting in vexatious and protracted litigation. To this extent it was interested in having the debts owing the plaintiff and others for materials and work discharged without the assertion of liens.
We have no case precisely in point. The surety company relies upon Jefferson v. Asch,
"As, so far as appears by the complaint, Benz could not be liable to pay for the work done and materials furnished in fulfilling the contract to repair, and as, under the law then in force, his interest in the property could not be subject to a lien therefor, it was legally a matter of indifference to him whether the work and materials were paid for or not. He had no duty in respect to it. And the question comes to this: Where, in a contract between two persons one promises the other to do something for the benefit of a stranger to the contract, and the promisee has no relation to the thing to be done nor to the stranger to be benefited, can such stranger bring an action to enforce the promise?"
The question propounded was answered in the negative. It was held that the plaintiff could not maintain an action on the bond. It is urged as a fair implication from the language used that, if the bond would have protected Benz against the assertion of a lien upon his property, the result would have been different. The absence of a right of lien against the property of the obligee, which might give an interest in requiring a bond to pay others, was mentioned in Clearwater C. Assn. v. Hovland,
We do not go into a detailed discussion of the authorities. The doctrine of Lawrence v. Fox, supra, involves difficulties in application and some confusion in the limitations and conditions attached to it. Our cases are noted in Dun. Dig. Supp. §§ 1896, 1897. Authorities discussing the doctrine are available. 15 Harv. L.R. 767; 2 Street, Found. Leg. Liab. 152-161; 4 Page, Contracts, §§ 2374-2410; 1 Williston, Contracts, § 368; 13 C.J. 703-713; 6 R.C.L. p. 882, §§ 271-278.
The trend of the law favors the right of the third party beneficiary to recover in his own name in an action at law, and perhaps more readily in jurisdictions where law and equity are fused. It may be noted, without further discussion, that many authorities hold in the case of contractors' bonds, and particularly in the case of paid sureties, that the labor and materialman, where the bond is such as that before us, may recover in a direct action; and they are little disturbed by a want of consideration passing from the beneficiary, or by a claim of lack of privity. Ochs v. M.J. Carnahan Co.
Judgment affirmed. *489
Addendum
In the petition for reargument counsel for the appellant cite two recent Federal cases, U.S.F. G. Co. v. Vermont Marble Co.
Our decision should not be misunderstood. We held that it was intended to give those situated like the plaintiff a direct right of action on the bond. The language of the bond justifies such construction and Horton v. Crowley Elec. Co.
It was our suggestion but not a holding that it may be the law that a property owner, if he chooses to purchase or require his contractor to provide insurance in favor of laborers and materialmen who help in the construction of his building, not merely by way of indemnity in the event that he shall be subjected to liens but for their use and benefit, the insuring company may be required to abide by its undertaking in a personal suit brought by the materialman or laborer; and we cited cases showing a trend that way.
Motion for reargument denied. *490
