Miles v. Baley

20 Citing cases

  1. San Dimas Quarry Company v. American Surety Company of New York

    30 Cal.App. 3 (Cal. Ct. App. 1916)   Cited 3 times

    Since that time, however, the cases upon which it relies have been overruled. We refer to Miles v. Baley, 170 Cal. 151, [ 149 P. 45], decided by the supreme court of California on May 11, 1915. The bond in that case was given under the act of 1897 and in connection with a contract for the erection of a high-school building.

  2. Winick Corp v. General Ins. Co.

    187 Cal.App.3d 142 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 14 times

    Generally, a statutory bond is an instrument which is given and accepted pursuant to some statutory provision. ( Miles v. Baley (1915) 170 Cal. 151, 158-159 [ 149 P. 45]; 59 Cal.Jur.3d, Suretyship and Guaranty, § 15, p. 34.) In ascertaining the purpose of a bond, the surety contract must be interpreted by the same rules used in construing other types of contracts, with a view towards effectuating the purpose for which the contract was designed.

  3. Continental National Bank of Los Angeles v. Republic Casualty Co.

    202 Cal. 586 (Cal. 1927)   Cited 7 times

    We are unable to distinguish between this case and the case of Stone v. Shackelford, 64 Cal.App. 750 [222 P. 846], wherein a bond given in pursuance of the Public Works Act, under which the bond in question here was given, and being literally identical as to its binding clauses with the bond herein, was held to be a statutory bond. Neither are we able to discover a basic distinction between the bond here under review and that considered and held to be a statutory bond in the case of Miles v. Baley, 170 Cal. 151 [ 149 P. 45]. The cases of Pacific Wood Coal Co. v. Oswald, 179 Cal. 712 [ 178 P. 854], and Sherman v. American Surety Co., 178 Cal. 286 [ 173 P. 161], are also instructive and controlling in reaching the conclusion that the bond in question here is in substantial compliance, as to the very matters which form the basis of the appellant's criticism, with the terms of the statute which prescribes the form and substance of such bond.

  4. General Electric Co. v. American Bonding Co., of Baltimore

    180 Cal. 675 (Cal. 1919)   Cited 14 times

    Appellant insists that this is strictly a statutory bond, and that no liability arises upon it as a common-law obligation. The learned district court of appeal of the second appellate district agreed with appellant's view and reversed the judgment upon the authority of Miles v. Baley, 170 Cal. 151, [ 149 P. 45], Hubbard v. Jurian, 35 Cal.App. 757, [ 170 P. 1093], and Crane Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 37 Cal.App. 87, [ 173 P. 494]. The first of these cases arose not under section 1183 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but under an act to secure the payment of the claims of materialmen, etc., employed upon public work.

  5. Sukut-Coulson, Inc. v. Allied Canon Co.

    85 Cal.App.3d 648 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978)   Cited 23 times
    Affirming fees for plaintiff, even though it did not recover amount stated in complaint; defendants were not prevailing parties under § 1717 "merely because the plaintiff's recovery did not correspond to its wildest dreams"

    Even though the plain language of its bond provides the surety will pay a reasonable attorneys fee if suit is brought on the bond, Stuyvesant claims any provision in a statutory bond not specifically required by the statute is mere surplusage and must be disregarded. ( Powers Regulator Co. v. Seaboard Surety Co. (1962) 204 Cal.App.2d 338, 348-350 [ 22 Cal.Rptr. 373]; Miles v. Baley (1915) 170 Cal. 151, 158 [ 149 P. 45]; Bridges v. Price (1928) 95 Cal.App. 394 [ 273 P. 72].) These cases are not controlling, for here we are not confronted by bond language purporting to bind parties ( Powers) or set conditions precedent to liability not required by statute ( Miles, Bridges).

  6. Powers Regulator Co. v. Seaboard Surety Co.

    204 Cal.App.2d 338 (Cal. Ct. App. 1962)   Cited 27 times
    Rejecting surety's estoppel defense based on the reliance of the principal in the context of an action by a sub-subcontractor against a payment bond

    Such is the established rule. Miles v. Baley, 170 Cal. 151, 158 [ 149 P. 45]: "'"Where a statute provides that an official bond shall be given in a certain penalty and contain certain provisions, if the principal and surety voluntarily enter into a bond in a greater penalty or which contains more onerous conditions, the bond will be binding at least to the extent of the statutory requirements. In such case, the conditions in excess of the statutory requirements may be regarded as surplusage and the bond sustained as to the others.

  7. Olson v. Glens Falls Ins. Co.

    181 Cal.App.2d 165 (Cal. Ct. App. 1960)   Cited 5 times

    ( Blumenthal v. Larson (1926), 79 Cal.App. 726 [ 248 P. 681, 251 P. 241]; Mitchell v. Smith (1928), 204 Cal. 197 [ 267 P. 540]; Bridges v. Price (1928), supra, 95 Cal.App. 394; Anthony v. Van (1929), 96 Cal.App. 523 [ 274 P. 563]; Hogberg v. Landfield (1929), 99 Cal.App. 360 [ 278 P. 907]; Giles v. Welling (1929), 100 Cal.App. 515 [ 280 P. 539]; Kennepohl v. Cary Co. (1931), 112 Cal.App. 413 [ 296 P. 897]; Burdette v. Maryland Cas. Co. (1935), 8 Cal.App.2d 17 [ 47 P.2d 317]; White v. Financial Guarantee Corp. (1936), 13 Cal.App.2d 93 [ 56 P.2d 550]; Lindstrom v. Palmer (1942), 54 Cal.App.2d 257 [ 128 P.2d 877].) The same rule has been applied to bonds given under the Public Works Acts ( Miles v. Baley (1915), 170 Cal. 151 [ 149 P. 45]; Evans v. Shackelford (1923), 64 Cal.App. 750 [222 P. 846]; Continental Nat. Bank v. Republic Cas. Co. (1927), 202 Cal. 586 [ 262 P. 300]); to bonds given under the Real Estate Brokers Act ( Nittler v. Continental Casualty Co. (1928), 94 Cal.App. 498 [ 271 P. 555, 272 P. 309]; Clark v. Patterson (1931), 213 Cal. 4 [ 300 P. 967, 75 A.L.R. 1124]); and to bonds of public officials ( Hartford Acc. etc. Co. v. City of Tulare, 30 Cal.2d 832, 837 [ 186 P.2d 121]).

  8. Smith v. McKnight

    117 Cal.App. 427 (Cal. Ct. App. 1931)   Cited 1 times

    This was the conclusion reached in Republic Iron Steel Co. v. Patillo, (1912) 19 Cal.App. 316 [ 125 P. 923], where provisions of the Vrooman Act, in all essentials identical with the provisions quoted above, were applied. It is a conclusion further supported by Miles v. Baley, (1915) 170 Cal. 151 [ 149 P. 45]; San Dimas Quarry Co. v. American Surety Co., (1916) 30 Cal.App. 3 [ 157 P. 548]; Evans v. Shackelford, (1923) 64 Cal.App. 750 [222 P. 846]. See, also, the discussion in Hub Hardware Co. v. Aetna Accident Liability Co., (1918) 178 Cal. 264 [ 173 P. 81], and in California Portland Cement Co. v. Boone, (1919) 181 Cal. 35 [ 183 P. 447].

  9. B. Nicoll Co. v. National Surety Co.

    111 Cal.App. 333 (Cal. Ct. App. 1931)

    Such is the case here, even though the improvement is upon a street and not upon a building. The appellant cites the cases of Baum v. Whatcom County, 19 Wn. 626 [54 P. 29]; Miles v. Baley, 170 Cal. 151 [ 149 P. 45]; Milliron v. Dittman, 180 Cal. 443 [ 181 P. 779]; Adams v. Williams, 97 Miss. 113 [Ann. Cas. 1912C, 1129, 30 L.R.A. (N.S.) 855, 52 So. 865], and a number of others to the effect that erroneous references or recitals, considered as surplusage, found in a bond, would not invalidate the same if it conformed to the act of 1911, and that it would bind the surety to the extent contemplated by the statute, and no further.

  10. Lamb v. National Surety Co.

    108 Cal.App. 297 (Cal. Ct. App. 1930)   Cited 9 times
    In Lamb, an automobile owner refused to pay repair charges, so the repairman retained the automobile and threatened to sell it for his charges.

    [4] It is also clear that we cannot construe the instrument in question to be a common-law bond for the reason that it is apparent that it was not so intended. In Miles v. Baley, 170 Cal. 151, 157 [ 149 P. 45], our Supreme Court used this language: "It is obviously not necessary that the bond should expressly refer to the statute in order to constitute it a statutory bond. A bond, though not in the words of the statute requiring it to be given, if its substance and legal effect is the same as the form prescribed by such statute, is a statutory bond.