history of the statute as well as to the practical considerations underlying the Act.
'It is apparent from the hearings before the subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary leading to the adoption of the Miller Act that the participants had in mind a clear distinction between subcontractors and materialmen. * * *' (Emphasis supplied.)
After quoting from the Congressional hearings the Court stated:
'* * * The fact that subcontractors were so consistently distinguished from materialmen and laborers in the course of the formation of the Act is persuasive evidence that the word 'subcontractor' was used in the proviso of Section 2(a) in its technical sense so as to exclude materialmen and laborers.'
The Court concluded that Miller was not a contractor. Accordingly, Tomkins stood in too remote a relationship to secure the benefits of the bond.
In the instant case, the plaintiff, the third subcontractor, performed two contracts, one for the erection of a bunker, the other for the erection of a stiff leg post and three bridle posts, both of which were an actual part of the Tobyhanna job and were performed on the site by the plaintiff. It seems to me that plaintiff certainly qualifies under the wording of the MacEvoy case as one of 'the relatively few subcontractors who perform part of the original contract' and who accordingly 'represent in a sense the prime contractor and are well known to him.' The plaintiff here was not 'an ordinary materialman.'
I find nothing in the Act which would preclude a subcontractor actually performing on the site an integral part of the main contract which was the responsibility of the prime contractor from the beneficent provisions of this Act. As a matter of fact, a study of the legislative history of this Act taken with the expressed view of the Supreme Court in the MacEvoy case that it is to be given a liberal interpretation convinces me that this third subcontractor plaintiff is within the group entitled to protection under the Act.
Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint is accordingly refused.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.