As the Act of August 13, 1894, relative to contractors' bonds
prior to the amendment of February 24, 1905, contained no provision
as to jurisdiction of courts in which suits could be brought on
such bonds, the Circuit Court of the district in which the
bondsman, if a surety company, has its principal office, had
jurisdiction under the act
Page 228 U. S. 568
regulating surety companies of August 13, 1894, and this
jurisdiction extended to suits on bonds executed prior to the
amendatory act for materials furnished after the passage of that
act.
The Act of February 24, 1905, amending the Act of August 13,
1894, and requiring that all suits on a contractor's bond be
brought in the district in which the contract was to be performed,
had merely a prospective operation, and no retroactive effect.
Davidson Marble Co. v. Gibson, 213 U. S.
10.
The facts, which involve the jurisdiction of the circuit court
of actions brought on contractors' bonds under the Act of August
13, 1894, and the construction of the act amendatory thereof of
February 24, 1905, are stated in the opinion.
Page 228 U. S. 570
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an action upon a contractor's bond executed on May 24,
1904, under the provisions of the Act of Congress of August 13,
1894, c. 280, 28 Stat. 278, entitled, "An Act for the Protection of
Persons Furnishing Materials and Labor for the Construction of
Public Works." The question for decision is whether the court below
had jurisdiction of the cause.
The bond was executed by the surety company in connection with a
contract entered into by the Scofield Company with the United
States for the erection of a dry dock at the League Island navy
yard. The Harlan & Hollingsworth corporation took over a
subcontract and constructed a caisson for the dock. To recover a
balance owing, the corporation resorted to its remedy on the bond.
The bond and various contracts were made prior to 1905.
Page 228 U. S. 571
The above-mentioned Act of August 13, 1894, contains no
direction respecting where suit upon the bond of a contractor shall
be brought by a subcontractor, or what courts shall take
jurisdiction of the right of action it creates. As the principal
office of the defendant surety company was located within the
district, this action was commenced in the court below, as
authorized by ยง 5 of an Act of Congress also approved August 13,
1894 c. 282, 28 Stat. 279, regulating surety companies which
execute bonds required by the laws of the United States
The Scofield Company did not defend. The surety company,
however, entered a plea to the jurisdiction of the court,
contending that, as the work done and materials and labor furnished
by the Harlan & Hollingsworth corporation were done and
furnished after the passage of an Act approved February 24, 1905,
c. 778, 33 Stat. 811, amendatory of the first-mentioned Act of
1894, and making important changes in the rights of a
subcontractor, the provisions of the amendatory act governed, and
the action should have been commenced in the district in which the
contract was to be performed and executed. A demurrer to the plea
was sustained, and, for want of an affidavit of defense, judgment
was entered in favor of the Harlan & Hollingsworth Company, and
the case was brought directly here on the question of
jurisdiction.
The circuit court was clearly right in upholding its
jurisdiction. As already stated, the contract between the United
States and the original contractor, the bond of the surety company,
and the contract with the use plaintiff, were all executed prior to
the passage of the amendatory act. To hold that the latter act
applied therefore would be to construe the act as having a
retroactive effect. It has, however, been definitely decided that
the act was intended to have merely a prospective operation.
U.S. Fidelity Co. v.
Struthers Wells Co., 209 U.
S. 306;
Davidson Bros. Marble Co. v. Gibson,
213 U. S. 10. The
decisions
Page 228 U. S. 572
lend no support to the contention now urged on behalf of the
plaintiff in error, that Congress intended the Act of 1905 to be
retroactive in all cases where the work was done after the passage
of the amendment.
Judgment affirmed.
