Wells Benz, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Mercury Electric Co.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Koelsch, J.
These are two separate suits which-were heard together, both here and in the district court. They involve four Miller-Act Claims [40 U.S.C. § 270a and § 270b], prosecuted by Mercury Electric-Company (Mercury), a subcontractor, against Wells Benz, Inc. and Dale Benz,. Inc. (Wells and Benz), the prime contractors, together with their surety, the-Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York. They also include counter-elaims-asserted by Wells and Benz. 1 The dis- *91 -fcriet court rendered judgment for Mercury on three of its claims and against Wells and Benz on all the counter-claims. ■Only Wells and Benz have appealed.
In December, 1958, Wells and Benz, as ;prime contractors, awarded Mercury, the subcontractor, contracts for the electrical 'work and equipment on several construction projects of the Federal Government • at Point Arguello and Point Mugu, California. There were four jobs, each of ■which was the subject of a separate -contract. They were known as the “Instrumentation Job,” the “Photo Tracking •Job,” the “Range Job” and the “Supply Department Job.” Mercury fully performed the contract for the Range Job, 'but before the others were completed 'Wells and Benz ordered it to…