Pealman v. Reliance Ins. Co., 371 U.S. 132 (1962)

Pealman v. Reliance Insurance Co.


No. 78


Argued October 9-10, 1962
Decided December 3, 1962
371 U.S. 132

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Syllabus

When, by reason of the contractor’s default, a surety on a payment bond given by a contractor under the Miller Act, 49 Stat. 793, has been compelled to pay debts of the contractor for labor and materials, the surety is entitled by subrogation to reimbursement from a fund otherwise due to the contractor but withheld by the Government pursuant to the terms of the contract -- even though the contractor has become bankrupt and the Government has turned the withheld fund over to the contractor’s trustee in bankruptcy. Pp. 133-142.

(a) This fund never became a part of the bankruptcy estate, and its disposition is not controlled by the Bankruptcy Act. Pp. 135-136.

(b) Prairie State Bank v. United States, 164 U.S. 227, and Henningsen v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 208 U.S. 404, followed. Pp. 137-139.

(c) The Miller Act, which requires separate performance and payment bonds on Government contracts, did not change the law as declared in the Prairie State Bank and Henningsen cases. Pp. 139-140.

(d) The Prairie State Bank and Henningsen cases were not overruled by United States v. Munsey Trust Co., 332 U.S. 234. Pp. 140-142.

298 F.2d 655 affirmed.