The nature of liability upon bonds given in pursuance of the act of Congress has been the subject of frequent consideration in this court, and the former discussions and conclusions need not be repeated here. Guaranty Co. v.
The first contention of the plaintiff in error is that the work done at the quarry and the hauling and delivering of stone at the breakwater, or, at least, certain parts of such work, are not within the terms of the contract and bond, as work done or material furnished in the prosecution of the work provided for in the contract. This contention was rejected by the court below and we think properly. The object of the contract was to put the stone in place, much of it being merely dropped into the water, with a view to the construction of the breakwater. To accomplish this purpose it was of course necessary to have the material taken from the quarry, using tools and labor for that purpose, and transported to the location of the breakwater and there deposited. This material could not be had immediately at the breakwater, and bids were required to show samples of stone and names and locations of quarries to be used as the source of supply. The work involved in the claim here made was all necessary to the performance of the contract, and in our view comes clearly within the class of labor accounts the satisfaction of which it was the purpose of the act of Congress to secure by a proper bond.
It is next contended that the laborers had not assigned their claims to Bartlett in such way as to give him any more than an equitable right thereto and had not clothed him with the legal right to maintain an action at law upon the bond. But we think that the testimony discloses that so much of the laborers' wages as were necessary to satisfy Bartlett's advances were assigned to him with their consent and deductions to that extent made from such wages with their approval in such wise as to consummate the assignment.
It is next urged that in making the claim for an excessive
As to the contention that the suit of defendant in error, in view of the delay in bringing it and want of previous demand or notice to the surety, shows gross laches, we agree with the Circuit Court of Appeals that the record does not disclose any such laches or change of relation affecting the rights of the surety as would relieve it of liability. Nor do we think there was such confusion of accounts or error in the admission of testimony as to require a reversal.
It therefore follows that the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming the judgment of the Circuit Court, must be