Consistent with a line of cases beginning in 1916, the Haskell Court did not impose liability on the public entity or the individual school board members for any losses caused by the failure of the contractor to obtain the bond. See, Electric Supply Co. v. City of Muskogee, 1935 OK 235, 42 P.2d 140; Frensley Bros. Lumber Co. v. Scott, 1926 OK 312, 245 P. 615; Tulsa Boiler M.F.G. Co. v. Shaffer, 1919 OK 117, 180 P. 379;Reinhart Donovan Co. v. Board of Comr's of Chocotow Co., 1918 OK 327, 173 P. 848; Clark v. Board of Comr's of Osage Co., 1916 OK 62, 161 P. 791; Bushnell v. Haynes, 1916 OK 359, 156 P. 343. See also, American Cas. Co. v. Board of Educ. of Ind. School Dist. No.2, 228 F. Supp. 843 (D.Okla. 1964); American Cas. Co. v. Town of Shattuck, 228 F. Supp. 834 (D. Okla. 1979).
Lohr Trapnell v. H.W. Johns-Manville Co., 77 Okla. 6, 185 P. 526 (1919). See also Tulsa Boiler and Manufacturing Company v. Shaffer, 72 Okla. 235, 180 P. 379 (1919); Reinhart Donovan Co. v. Board of County Commissioners of Choctaw County, 70 Okla. 127, 173 P. 848 (1918); and Bushnell v. Haynes, 56 Okla. 592, 156 P. 343 (1916). Our Court has consistently held that one who furnishes materials to a contractor which are used for the construction of public projects is charged with knowledge of the statutory duty of the contractor to give a bond pursuant to 61 O.S. 1971 §§ 1[ 61-1] 2 [ 61-2].
"The defendant surety company argues that it is a party to the above contract, and by reason of the provisions thereof it acquired a lien on the funds paid on the contract to the extent that it had the right to demand that payments made on the contract would be used to pay labor and material bills on the contract. Such contention is without merit for the reason that the surety company is not a party to said contract, and for the further reason that said contract was made for the benefit of the city and not for the surety company, and we are not herein dealing with funds in hands of the city." The case of Tulsa Boiler Mfg. Co. v. Shaffer, 72 Okla. 235, 180 P. 379, supports the decision of this court in the case at bar. In that case the syllabus is as follows:
"All men are charged with knowledge of the law, and men who sell material to public improvement contractors are charged with knowledge of that condition which the law implies as being part of the contract of every such contractor; and, if they sell material to such contractors before their contracts have been made effective by the filing of the bond which the law requires, they do so at their own peril, and if they sustain losses thereby, the proximate cause thereof is their own negligence, and not that of the contracting officers, because if the contracting officers have neglected to write into the contract in express terms that which the law says shall be there, the law, by its own operation, puts it there by implication." See Reinhart Donavan Co. v. Board of Com'rs of Choctaw Co. et al., 70 Okla. 127, 173 P. 848; Tulsa Boiler Mfg. Co. v. Shaffer et al., 72 Okla. 235, 180 P. 385. In the instant case the plaintiff by his own testimony proved conclusively that it dealt with Overton exclusively, and received its money, such as was paid, from Overton, and the judgment of the trial court is well sustained by the evidence, and the judgment is therefore affirmed.
the same is awarded, the person or persons to whom such contract is awarded shall furnish to the State of Oklahoma a bond with good and sufficient sureties to the State of Oklahoma, in a sum not less than the sum total of the contract, conditioned that such contractor or contractors shall pay all indebtedness incurred by such contractors or their sub-contractors who perform work in the performance of such contract, for labor and materials and repairs to and parts for equipment used and consumed in the performance of said contract." This section was enacted as a matter of public policy to protect laborers and materialmen on public construction since they have no contractual rights against the public body or lien rights against public land or improvements. Although for the benefit of laborers and materialmen the courts have uniformly held that they cannot recover against a public entity, individually or otherwise, for loss sustained where the contractor had not given the required bond. Tulsa Boiler and Manufacturing Company v. Shaffer, 72 Okl. 235, 180 P. 379; American Gas Company v. Town of Shattuck, Okl., D.C., 228 F. Supp. 834. In determining if there is any requirement that the Commissioners of the Land Office demand the filing of the statutory surety bond, the provisions of Section 1 must be examined.