RAMSEY & GATLIN CONSTRUCTION CO. ET AL.
v.
VINCENNES BRIDGE CO.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court dismissed a certified question regarding whether a subcontractor could enforce rights under a surety bond governed by Kentucky law, finding that the Kentucky Court of Appeals had already resolved the issue by deciding in a parallel case that subcontractors were entitled to avail themselves of the bond's provisions. The Court held that once a state's highest court had interpreted the state-law contract, there was no need for federal review of the certified question.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam:
As it appears from statements at the bar that the contract herein and the bond given pursuant thereto were made and the obligations thereof were to be performed within the State of Kentucky, and as the bond should be construed in accordance with the law of that state, and it appearing that, since the certification herein, the Court of Appeals of Kentucky has construed the bond' in question and decided that one in the position of the appellee in the court below, as a subcontractor, was entitled to avail itself of the provision in the bond and maintain its action (Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Wheeler & Putnam Co., decided March 27, 1931, 239 Ky. 247) the Court is of opinion that there is no occasion for an answer by the Court to the question propounded in the certificate. Illinois Surety Co. v. John Davis Co., 244 U. S. 376, 381; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 175 U. S. 91, 100; Globe Indemnity Co. v. Southern Pacific Co., 30 F. (2d) 580, 583; Federal Surety Co. v. City of Staunton, 29 F. (2d) 9, 11; Community Building Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 8 F. (2d) 678, 680; Black Diamond S. S. Corp. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 33 F. (2d) 767, 768. The certificate is, accordingly, dismissed.
Mr. W. Braxton Dew, with whom Messrs. Henderson R. Dysard and John L. Smith were on the brief, for Ramsey & Gatlin Construction Co. Mr. Frank C. Malin, with whom Mr. Seymour Riddle was on the brief, for Vincennes Bridge Co.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ætna Life Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Maxwell, 89 F.2d 988 (4th Cir. 1937)…very generally have recognized the right of the beneficiary to sue and have applied the law of the state under which the rights and liabilities of the parties to the contract were to be determined. Ramsey & Gatlin Const. Co. v. Vincennes Bridge Co., 283 U.S. 796, 51 S.Ct. 484, 75 L.Ed. 1420; Willard v. Wood, 135 U.S. 309, 10 S.Ct. 831, 34 L.Ed. 210, Union Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Hanford, 143 U.S. 187, 12 S.Ct. 437, 36 L.Ed. 118 2 [*994] It is agreed that the contract in the pending case is governed by the l…
-
Consol. Cut Stone Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 62 F.2d 975 (10th Cir. 1933)…exception to the general principle.” However, as the place of performance of this contract was in Oklahoma, the law of that state applies to the contractual relations of these parties. Ramsey & Gatlin Construction Co. et al. v. Vincennes Bridge Co., 283 U. S. 796, 51 S. Ct. 484, 75 L. Ed. 1420. We may properly eliminate those eases involving contracts for the construction of public works on buildings, as the statute confers a remedy on the bond. Sections 7486, 7487, C. O. S. 1921. See Southern Surety Co. v.…
-
Union Indem. Co. v. Lang, 71 F.2d 901 (9th Cir. 1934)…rmony and to avoid confusion, the federal courts will lean towards aw. agreement of views with the state courts if the question seems to them balanced with doubt.’ [Cases cited.]” See, also, Ramsey & Gatlin Construction Co. v. Vincennes Bridge Co., 283 U. S. 796, 797, 51 S. Ct. 484, 75 L. Ed. 1420, where Judge Gilbert’s decision was likewise cited with approval, and Consolidated Cut Stone Co. v. Hartford Accident & I. Co. (C. C. A. 10) 62 F. (2d) 975, 976. There can be no question that the legal principle…
Authorities Cited
- Ill. Sur. Co. v. The John Davis Co., 244 U.S. 376 (U.S. 1917)
- Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Chicago, 175 U.S. 91 (U.S. 1899)
- Cmty. BLDG. Co. v. Md. Cas. Co., 8 F.2d 678 (9th Cir. 1925)
- Fed. Sur. Co. v. City of Staunton, 29 F.2d 9 (5th Cir. 1928)
- Globe Indem. Co. v. S. Pac. Co., 30 F.2d 580 (2d Cir. 1929)
- Black Diamond S. S. Corp. v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md. (D. Md. 1929)