Southern Surety Co. v. Western Pipe & Steel Co. of California

This was an action by an intervening creditor on a bond given by a Contractor for the construction, prosecution, and completion of a publie work, pursuant to the Act of August 13, 1894 ( 28 Stat. 278 ), as amended by the Act of February 24, 1905 ( 33 Stat. 811 ). The latter act provides:

The action was tried in the court below without a jury, a jury having been waived by stipulation in writing as required by law, and judgment was entered in favor of the intervener upon special findings of fact. That judgment is now before us for review.

The sole contention of the plaintiff in error is that the petition in intervention was not filed within one year after the complete performance and final settlement of the contract, as provided by law. It is doubtful whether that question is open to review on the record before us. Fleischmann Co. v. United States, 270 U. S. 349 , 46 S. Ct. 284 , 70 L. Ed. 624 . But this we need not determine, as the decision of the court below on the merits was manifestly right. After defining the term “chief engineer” as the chief engineer of the bureau of public roads, and the term “district engineer” as the district engineer of the bureau of public roads in…