Isackson

I concur in the result and, except as indicated below, agree with what is said in the main opinion.

Appellee was not a party to the grant agreement between appellant and the United States. The grant agreement is not mentioned or referred to in the construction contract between appellant and appel-lee. The validity of the construction contract is in no way dependent on that of the grant agreement. Whether the grant agreement was valid or invalid is of no interest or concern to appellee. Not having been raised by any one entitled to raise it, that question need not and should not be decided.

With the conclusions of my associates touching the merits of the question, I express neither agreement nor disagreement.

Appellee brought an action to recover for labor performed and materials furnished, recovered a judgment against appellant; thereupon this appeal was taken.

In 1933, appellant entered into a grant agreement with the United States, as a result of an application filed by appellant for a grant of money for the construction of an addition to a high school building, and for the remodeling of the existing building. The United States thereby granted appellant an amount not to exceed 30 per centum of the cost of the labor and materials employed on the project, but in no event to exceed $35,000. The grant agreement contained certain terms and conditions upon which the grant was made.

The terms of the grant agreement required that the plans, drawings, specifications, and construction contracts be in form and substance as approved by the United States; that appellant, without the prior written consent of the United States, would not purchase any materials or equipment for the project subject to any chattel mortgage or conditional sales agreement; that all construction contracts and all subcontracts would be subject to the rules and regulations adopted by the United States to carry out the…