Sherman v. Western Construction Co.

(dissenting) — It seems to me that the majority misconstrue our opinion in the case of Western Const. Co. v. Austin, 3 Wn. (2d) 58, 99 P. (2d) 932, which was decided in favor of respondent Sherman (who in that case was appellant). Concerning the former case, the majority opinion states:

“Because the creditors of Austin failed to establish their claims in compliance with 40 U.S.C.A., § 270b, and because appellant failed to prove that either it or its bond was liable for Austin’s obligations, we held that Sherman, as guarantor, was under no contractual duty to discharge them. Regardless, then,…