Ex Parte Southwestern Surety Insurance
Supreme Court of the United States
PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION. Upon petition, a rule was made upon the Judge of the District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, to show 'cause why a writ of prohibition should not issue to prevent further proceedings in an action brought, against a contractor and the petitioner as its surety, under the Act of August 13,1894, c. 280,28 Stat. 278, as amended. The decision was made upon the petition and respondent’s answer thereto.
1Opinion of the Court
Memorandum opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice White,
by direction of the court.
The statute (c. 280, 28 Stat. 278; c. 778, 33 Stat. 811) makes the. district court of the district in which work contracted to be done for the United States is to be performed the forum for the assertion by supply creditors or material men of their claims against the contractor and the surety on the bond. It moreover authorizes one suit by all for the purpose of enforcing the liability of the surety. In the light of these provisions and their settled interpretation all the contentions of the petitioner but one which we…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Illinois Surety Co. v. John Davis Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Illinois Surety Co. v. United States Ex Rel. PeelerSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- United States v. Congress Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- In Re New York & Porto Rico Steamship Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Ex parte OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Ex Parte Bakelite Corp'n.Supreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Wainwright v. Pennsylvania R.District Court, E.D. Missouri · 1918
- McClamroch v. Southern Surety Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1922
- Odom v. LangstonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1947
- State Ex Rel. Burton v. MontgomerySupreme Court of Missouri · 1927
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.