This means that the supreme court did not consider Waseca and Barrett Bros. to be inconsistent. The third case that appellant contends is contrary to Barrett Bros. is First Nat'l Bank v. McHasco Elec., Inc., 273 Minn. 407, 141 N.W.2d 491 (1966). In McHasco, a contractor entered into contracts with three cities to install street-lighting facilities.
It reasons that State Farm's erroneous payment to Sandness as a supposed uninsured motorist was therefore merely a voluntary payment, and voluntary payments do not trigger subrogation. See First Nat'l Bank of St. Paul v. McHasco Elec., Inc., 273 Minn. 407, 414, 141 N.W.2d 491, 496 (1966) (observing that a lender is subrogated to another party's rights if the lender advanced its loan to satisfy a prior commitment). United Fire's argument overlooks the fact that coverage here was previously denied or at least reasonably uncertain.
"It is generally held that a stipulation for the retention of a certain percentage of the consideration for the protection of materialmen, workmen, etc., is in part an indemnity for a surety who guarantees the performance of the contract by the contractor, and that it raises an equity in his favor in the fund thus created, or to be created, to the extent he suffers loss, which takes precedence over assignments of the fund by the contractor." To the same effect are the following cases which have been rendered since the date of the Annotation: First Nat. Bank of St. Paul v. M. E. I., 273 Minn. 407, 141 N.W.2d 491; Commercial Bank in Panama City v. B. of P.I. (Fla.)