Shreveport Mut. Bldg. Ass'n v. Whittington, 141 La. 41 (1916)
Winning Party
Materialmen
Key Issue
Concursus proceeding to adjudicate claims against a contractor and surety.
Case Type
CIVIL
•
Plaintiff contracted with J.C. Whittington for the construction of a building.
•
Whittington provided a surety bond.
•
The surety company argued that some materialmen failed to file sworn statements with the owner as required by statute.
•
Four materialmen recorded claims against the property.
•
Plaintiff deposited the balance due to the contractor into the court registry.
Ask about this case, find precedent, analyze legal issues, or draft provisions. Powered by all precedential U.S. cases (10M+)
No credit card required
•
It was not necessary for the materialmen to file sworn statements of their accounts with the owner of the building as a condition precedent to recovery against the surety in case of default of the contractor.
Shreveport Mut. Bldg. Ass'n v. Whittington, 141 La. 41, 74 So. 591, 1916 La. LEXIS 1724 (1916)
The court reasoned that the statute's intent is to protect workmen, laborers, mechanics, and materialmen. The surety is limited to the defenses available to the contractor. The service of a sworn statement on the owner serves the purpose of notice, which can be waived. The failure to serve a sworn account on the owner does not release the contractor and surety from their obligation to pay for materials used in construction. The surety would only be entitled to a credit for any loss occasioned by such failure, and no damage resulted in this case.
The Supreme Court answered the question propounded by the Court of Appeal in the negative, holding that it was not necessary for the materialmen to file sworn statements of their accounts with the owner as a condition precedent to recovery against the surety.
StrongSuit has advanced legal AI tools for deep insights & comprehensive analysis
No credit card required