As is clear from the statute itself and Hackman, supra, Pascoe must also prove as part of its prima facie case that it had not been able to collect the money from the contractor and thus that its loss occurred because of the contractor's failure to take the bond. Since Pascoe failed to prove this element of its case, the trial court properly directed a verdict against it. Bremen Products Co. v. Ledbetter-Johnson Co., 109 Ga. App. 573 ( 136 S.E.2d 404) (1964); Electrical Equipment Co. v. Daniel, 109 Ga. App. 463 ( 136 S.E.2d 491) (1963). The judgment of the Court of Appeals must be reversed.

In an action to recover from a county for materials furnished to a subcontractor, while engaged in doing public work for the county, the petition must show that the loss sued for resulted from a failure of the county to take from the contractor the bond required by Code Ann. § 23-1706. Hackman v. Fulton County, 77 Ga. App. 410 ( 48 S.E.2d 706); cf. Electrical Equipment Co. v. Daniel, 109 Ga. App. 463. The only question before this court is whether the plaintiff's petition states a cause of action against Carroll County. There being no allegation in the petition that the county failed to take from the contractor the bond required by law, the petition did not state a cause of action against Carroll County. Hackman v. Fulton County, 77 Ga. App. 410, supra.