U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 1958

United States v. Standard Accident Insurance Company

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Decided July 8, 1958

257 F.2d 78; 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 5180 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

4-Star Construction Corp. v. United States (Court of Claims 1984)
United States Ex Rel. Benefit of T Square Equipment Corp. v. Gregor J. Schaefer Sons, Inc. (District Court, E.D. New York 1967)
Jiménez y Salellas, Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co. (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1965)
United States ex rel. Ward Construction Service, Inc. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (District Court, E.D. Kentucky 1960)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

257 F.2d 78

UNITED STATES of America (for the Use and on Behalf of B.
KATCHEN IRON WORKS, Inc., a New Jersey
Corporation), Appellant,
v.
STANDARD ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation Organized
and Existing Under the Laws of the State of Michigan,
Licensed to Do Business In the State of New Jersey, and
Daniel J. Cronin, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation.

No. 12578.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued June 9, 1958.
Decided July 8, 1958.

Samuel H. Nelson, Newark, N.J., for appellant.

Louis Auerbacher, Jr., Newark, N.J., for appellee.

Before KALODNER, STALEY and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this action under the Miller Act, 49 Stat. 793, 40 U.S.C.A. 270a et seq., a subcontractor seeks to recover on the special bond which the statute requires principal contractors to furnish. It is admitted that the complaint was filed more than a year after the date of final settlement of the prime contract as certified by the Comptroller General, despite the express provision of the Miller Act that '* * * no such suit shall be commenced after the expiration of one year after the date of final settlement of such contract.' 40 U.S.C.A. 270b(b). The district court properly held that this suit is barred by the statutory time limitation. Accord, United States for Use of Soda v. Montgomery, 3 Cir., 1958, 253 F.2d 509; Peerless Casualty Co. v. United States, 1 Cir., 1957, 241 F.2d 811.

Judgment will be affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.