TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

The Geis Construction Co., and United States Guarantee Company v. The United States of America, for the Use of Tom Igel Company

The GEIS CONSTRUCTION CO., and United States Guarantee Company, Appellants, v. the UNITED STATES of America, for the Use of TOM IGEL COMPANY, Appellee

The Geis Constr. Co. v. The United States, for the Use of Tom Igel Co., 243 F.2d 568 (6th Cir. 1957)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 24, 1957
Docket
No. 13021
Judges
Allen, McALLISTER, Per Curiam, Stewart
Citations
243 F.2d 5681957 U.S. App. LEXIS 4637

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Appellee furnished materials and labor to a subcontractor employed on a government project. The appellant was the prime contractor. The subcontractor went into receivership, and the appel-lee thereafter filed the present action under the Miller Act, 40 U.S.C.A. § 270b to recover the balance owing for labor and materials. This appeal is from the district court’s judgment against the appellant general contractor for the amount owed appellee under its contract with the subcontractor.

Appellant contends (1) that the ap-pellee failed to file his claim with appellant within ninety days after performing the last work under the contract, thus losing the right to recover under the statute, and (2) that the district court erred in refusing to admit evidence to show that the contract price exceeded the reasonable value of the materials furnished and services performed by the ap-pellee.

Whether the appellee performed work under its subcontract within ninety days before it filed its claim was a question answered in the affirmative by a jury, upon a special interrogatory framed by the appellant. The jury’s finding was supported by substantial evidence.

It was not error for the district court to exclude evidence of the actual value of the services performed and to enter judgment for the amount due under the contract, in the absence of any showing of fraud or collusion between the appellee and the subcontractor.

The judgment is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1957: 11967: 11972: 11998: 22009: 119572026peak 1998 · 2

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list