In this action a prime contractor seeks to enforce the surety bond of its defaulting subcontractor. Upon default of the subcontractor, the plaintiff-appellee became obligated to pay the bills of numerous materialmen, and it seeks reimbursement from the appellant on a Performance and Payment Bond given by the subcontractor. The district court, rejecting the surety’s contention that premature progress payments from the prime contractor to subcontractor released the surety’s obligation, rendered a judgment adverse to the surety, and it appeals.

Upon a review of the record and a consideration of all of the appellant’s contentions, we are convinced that the district court properly interpreted the contract and applied the appropriate legal principles. 224 F.Supp.’ 766 (W.D.La. 1963). We have- nothing to add to that opinion. The judgment is affirmed.