{
  "id": 5620042,
  "name": "E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company, Appellee, v. McKay Engineering and Construction Company and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company. Appeal of the United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. McKay Engineering & Construction Co.",
  "decision_date": "1938-12-13",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 40,227",
  "first_page": "495",
  "last_page": "498",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "297 Ill. App. 495"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 268,
    "char_count": 4808,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.508,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.8687793023533566e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7259784257692243
    },
    "sha256": "8894a559dd9aa75cd1af0a7f38e7bb9bbb5c58480a910aa6d5d67fb8f23b8d51",
    "simhash": "1:919d523e80acbdd3",
    "word_count": 792
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:10:33.326696+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company, Appellee, v. McKay Engineering and Construction Company and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company. Appeal of the United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice O\u2019Connor\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nPlaintiff brought an action on a surety bond executed by defendants as principal and surety, conditioned upon the performance of a construction contract made by defendant McKay Engineering & Construction Company with the Sanitary District of Chicago. Plaintiff\u2019s claim was for $1,601.06. The principal defendant, McKay Engineering & Construction Company, filed its affidavit of merits in which it admitted a liability of $705, being the fair, reasonable agreed price for materials furnished by plaintiff in the construction of the work. Afterward, on motion of plaintiff, judgment was entered against the McKay Engineering & Construction Company for the amount it admitted due, $705, and it was ordered that there be a trial for the balance of plaintiff\u2019s claim. Later the Surety Company filed its motion to dismiss the suit as to it on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction because the bond in suit was executed by defendants, pursuant to par. 15, ch. 29, Ill. Rev. Stat. 1937 [Jones Ill. Stats. Ann. 126.320], and that by par. 16, of that act, it was provided that actions to recover on such bonds could be only brought in the circuit courts of the State, and therefore the municipal court had no jurisdiction. The court overruled the motion. Defendant elected to stand by its motion and thereupon, judgment was entered in plaintiff\u2019s favor against the Surety Company for the balance of its claim, $896.06, and the Surety Company appeals.\nPlaintiff has filed no brief in this court.\nThe question for decision is, has the municipal court of Chicago jurisdiction of a suit on such bond? Par. 15, ch. 29 [Ill. Rev. Stat. 1937; Jones Ill. Stats. Ann. 126.320] provides that: \u201cAll officials, boards, commissions or agents of this State, or of any political subdivision\u201d in making contracts for public work to be performed for the State, or a political subdivision thereof, shall require every contractor for such work to execute a bond, etc., with good and sufficient surety in an amount to be fixed, conditioned \u201cfor the payment of material, used in such work and for all labor performed in such work, whether by subcontractor or otherwise.\u201d Par. 16 of the act provides that \u201cEvery person furnishing material or performing labor, either as an individual or as a sub-contractor for any contractor with the State, or a political subdivision thereof where bond shall be executed as provided in this Act, shall have the right to sue on such bond . . . for his use and benefit, \u2019 \u2019 etc. The paragraph also provides for the filing of notice by the claimant, and other matters not here pertinent, and further provides \u201cSuit shall be brought only in the circuit court of this State in the judicial district in which the contract is to be performed.\u201d\nPlaintiff, in its statement of claim alleged that it furnished materials as sub-contractor, pursuant to a contract entered into between it and defendant, McKay Engineering & Construction Company, which materials were used in a certain work job or project for the Sanitary District of Chicago, with whom the McKay Engineering & Construction Company had a contract. We think it clear that the bond, which is the basis of the instant case, was intended to comply with the provisions of the statutes. By par. 16 of the act, the legislature saw fit to lodge jurisdiction alone in the circuit courts of the State where suit was brought on such bonds. Apparently the legislature, in passing the act, intended that every contractor mentioned in the act should give a bond for the faithful performance of the work, and that any one furnishing labor or material in connection with the work might bring suit to recover for his labor or material, and the legislature intended that such suits should not be brought before other courts but only in the circuit courts of the State in the judicial district in which the contract was to be performed.\nWe hold that the 'municipal court had no jurisdiction and the motion of the Surety Company should have been sustained.\nThe judgment of the municipal court of Chicago appealed from is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to sustain the Surety Company\u2019s motion.\nJudgment reversed and remanded with directions.\nMcSurely, P. J., and Matchett, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice O\u2019Connor"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robertson, Crowe & Spence, of Chicago, for appellant; Eugene P. Kealy and Henry L. McIntyre, both of Chicago, of counsel.",
      "No appearance for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company, Appellee, v. McKay Engineering and Construction Company and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company. Appeal of the United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 40,227.\nHeard in the first division of this court for the first district at the June term, 1938.\nOpinion filed December 13, 1938.\nRobertson, Crowe & Spence, of Chicago, for appellant; Eugene P. Kealy and Henry L. McIntyre, both of Chicago, of counsel.\nNo appearance for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0495-01",
  "first_page_order": 525,
  "last_page_order": 528
}