Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Monahan v. Seaboard Surety Co.

Decided: January 28, 1941.

MARTIN J. MONAHAN, JR., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
SEABOARD SURETY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT



On appeal from the Supreme Court.

For the plaintiff-respondent, William V. Breslin.

For the defendant-appellant, William A. Moore.

Porter

The opinion of the court was delivered by

PORTER, J. The plaintiff brought this action on a surety bond signed by the defendant as surety under the provisions of R.S. 2:60-207 to indemnify subcontractors for labor performed and materials furnished in the construction of a public building.

The trial court, sitting without a jury by consent of the parties, found a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $670.50 and allowed interest and a counsel fee of $75.

The facts appear to be that William C. Ehret, a general contractor, entered into a contract with the New Jersey Department of Institutions and Agencies for the erection of a building at Skillman; that he contracted with John F. Greer, a subcontractor, to do certain of the work. Greer then entered into a contract with plaintiff for the furnishing of labor and material and to do all the metal furring, lathing, corner bead and base bead work, in accordance with the plans and specifications, for the sum of $1,700.

Ehret, the general contractor, furnished the said bond to the New Jersey Department of Institutions and Agencies signed by the defendant as surety under the provisions of R.S. 2:60-207.

Greer defaulted on his contract. The plaintiff having performed his work, and not having been paid, advised defendant of the situation and filed a notice of his claim and a stop-notice within the time and under the conditions prescribed by statute -- R.S. 2:60-209. His claim was for the full contract price of $1,700. Ehret did not dispute the fact that plaintiff has a valid claim but did dispute the amount due him. His contention was that but $264 was due which sum he offered to pay before suit was instituted and renewed the offer at the trial.

It appeared during the trial that the sum of $584.46 was paid by the defendant to a material man for metal lath used on the job which payment was authorized by the plaintiff. The proofs are not clear whether this payment was made before or after the notice of the claim was given by the plaintiff.

The complaint contains two counts. One for the amount due under the contract and the other on quantum meruit. The trial court found for the plaintiff on the quantum meruit count.

The argued grounds of appeal for convenience may be grouped into three parts which raise but three questions for our determination. First, did the court commit error by its failure to specify the facts upon which the amount of the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.