Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/32

 20 if'SDEBAli aEfjaXSB. �State of Missouei, etc., v. Tiedermann. (Oircuit Court, E. D. Missouri, October, 1881.', �1. BOILDINO CONTRACT— PCTBLIC BuiLDINGB KOT SUBJBCT TO MeCHANIO'S L1BN8 �— Removai of Cause— Subbtt not Boitnd bi Judgment agaenst Pbinci- �PAL AFTEK ReMOVAL. �Where the contract of the surety was that his principal should furnish the material and build a public school-house for $15,000, and suits were brought on claims for meohanics' liens on tl>e building, in which judgments were rendered against the school board and the principal, and the amounts paid upon these liens were in excess of the $15,000, hdd, the records of these iudgmenta are inadmissible as evidence, for under the law of Missouri there can be no valid meohanics' lien uppn a public school building ; and the surety was not bound by the adjudications in which the judgments were obtained, because rendered in a state court after he had removed so much of the controversy as was be- tweon himself and the plaintifEto the circuit court of the United States under the provisions of theremoval act of July 27, 1866, (14 St. at Large» 306.) �McCrary, C. J. On the question argued and submitted yesterday I am prepared to announce the conclusion reached by the court. The liability of this defendant is that of a, surety only. The contracta of sureties, as we all very well understand, are to be construed strictly in favor of the surety, The contract of this party was, in substance, that his principal should carry out, in good faith, the provisions of the contract for the building of a public school-house. Briefly stated, that contract was that he would furnish the material and build the school-house for $15,000 within a certain speeified time. The present question is whether the surety can be charged as liable, upon his con- tract of suretyship, for certain claitns of mechanics' liens against the public school building, upon which suits were brought, and in which suits judgments were rendered against the school board and against the principal establishing the mechanics' liens. The plaintiff pre- sents here the records of these judgments and offers them in evidence. The amounts paid upon these mechanics' liens was in excess of the $15,000 for which the building was to have been constructed and completed. The supreme court of Missouri, in the other branch of this case, held that the principal was liable on this account to refand the amount which was paid out by the board to settle these claims which are spoken of here as mechanics' liens. It does not, however, follow that the surety is liable for that to the same extent. The supreme court may have held that, as against the principal, the mechanics' liens were established by an adjudication, and that neither the board of education nor Mr. Diedrich Tiedermann, the principal ��� �