United States Ex Rel. Texas Portland Cement Co. v. McCord
Headline: Court rules creditors cannot bring delayed bond suits when the Government had six months to sue, blocking late creditor claims and enforcing strict statutory time limits for contractor-bond actions.
Holding: The Court held that creditors cannot maintain suit under the 1905 contractor-bond statute when the Government had the exclusive six-month period to sue, and later interventions or amendments cannot cure a prematurely filed action.
- Creditors cannot bring bond suits filed before the Government’s six-month window expires.
- Interventions or late amendments cannot revive prematurely filed claims.
- Creditors must wait until after final settlement and sue within one year.
Summary
Background
The United States filed a suit for the use and benefit of Texas Portland Cement Company and others against a contractor, D. C. McCord, and his surety on a bond tied to a public construction contract dated March 19, 1906. The contract was completed on October 12, 1909, and finally settled on November 11, 1909. The record shows the Government neither had nor asserted any claim after settlement. Various creditors intervened; one creditor, W. Illingsworth, filed an intervention on May 25, 1910, and the original plaintiffs later filed an amended petition on January 9, 1911. The trial court dismissed the suit and the questions were certified for decision.
Reasoning
The core question was whether creditors who supplied labor or materials could bring suit in the name of the United States under the 1905 statute when the Government had not sued within six months. The Court explained the statute gives the United States an exclusive six-month period to bring suit; only if the Government does not sue within that time do creditors gain a statutory right to sue. The statute also requires suits by creditors to be begun after complete performance and within one year. Because the original action was filed prematurely, the statute’s timing conditions were not met. The Court held that later interventions or an amended petition could not cure a suit that was improperly started.
Real world impact
The decision enforces strict timing rules for contractors’ creditors: if the Government could have sued within six months, creditors cannot start earlier and lose the statutory right. Creditors must follow the statute’s notice, publication, and one-year filing rules to preserve claims. The Court answered both certified questions in the negative and upheld dismissal of the prematurely filed action.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?