At the outset we start with the Texas rule that doubts in construction of the bond must be resolved against the surety. Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Central State Bank, Tex. Civ.App. 1928, 12 S.W.2d 611, 613; Massachusetts Bonding Ins. Co. v. Texas Finance Corp., Tex.Civ.App. 1924, 258 S.W. 250, error dismissed; First State Bank v. Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co., 1935, 125 Tex. 113, 79 S.W.2d 835, 98 A.L.R. 1256. But we see no doubt and no reason to import doubt.
We pause to note the Texas rule that all doubts in the construction of the bond must be resolved against the surety. National Surety Corporation v. Rauscher, Pierce Co., 369 F.2d 572 (C.C.A.5th Cir. 1967); Fidelity Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Central State Bank of Dallas, 12 S.W.2d 611 (Tex.Civ.App. — Waco 1928, no writ); First State Bank of Temple v. Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co. of New York, 125 Tex. 113, 79 S.W.2d 835 (1935). In connection with the surety's intent in executing the bond, the construction contract between Cox and Dickson should be considered.