This is an appeal from an order of the District Court denying the defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss a suit brought against th'e surety on a contractor’s bond furnished under the Miller Act, 49 Stat. 793, 794 (1935), 40 U.S.C. §§ 270a, 270b (1958). We allowed an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (1958). On the basis of the well-reasoned opinion of District Judge Matthews, 195 F.Supp. 752 (1961), the order will be affirmed. We add only that venue was properly laid in the District of Columbia, as the surety company was licensed to do business — and does business — here, see 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (1958), and as no other judicial district in the United States was suggested as an alternative forum. Cf. United States for Use and Benefit of Bryant Electric Co., Ltd. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 297 F.2d 665 (2d Cir. 1962).

Affirmed.