US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

1. Where A sold materials to B, who merely sold them to a contractor for use on a Government project, A is not entitled to recover upon a payment bond furnished by the contractor pursuant to the Miller Act. P. 322 U. S. 104.

2. The term "subcontractor" in the proviso of § 2(a) of the Miller Act --

"any person having direct contractual relationship with a subcontractor but no contractual relationship express or implied with the contractor furnishing said payment bond shall have a right of action upon said payment bond"

-- does not include a materialman who merely sells materials to the contractor. P. 322 U. S. 108.

3. The salutary policy of the Miller Act to protect those whose labor and materials go into public projects does not warrant disregard of the plain words of limitation in the proviso of § 2(a) of the Act. P. 322 U. S. 107.

137 F.2d 565 reversed.

Certiorari, 320 U.S. 733, to review the reversal of a judgment, 49 F.Supp. 81, dismissing the complaint in a suit against a Government contractor and surety upon a payment bond. chanrobles.com-red

Page 322 U. S. 103