Ex Parte Sw. Sur. Ins., 247 U.S. 19 (1918). · Go Syfert
Search
Ex Parte Sw. Sur. Ins., 247 U.S. 19 (1918). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
151 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 41 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: American Civil Construction, LLC v. Hirani Engineering & Land Surveying, Pc (dcd, 2018-11-28)
Treatment trajectory · 1918 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1918 1972 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) American Civil Construction, LLC v. Hirani Engineering & Land Surveying, Pc
D.D.C. · 2018 · confidence medium
Co., 247 U.S. 19, 20 (1918)).
examined Cited as authority (rule) S & H Contractors, Inc., a Corporation v. A.J. Taft Coal Company, Inc., a Corporation, A.J. Taft Coal Company, Inc. v. S & H Contractors, Inc. (4×) also: Cited "see"
11th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
The Court went on to distinguish those cases in which an “inherently intrastate [transaction] did not lose its essential nature because it formed part of an interstate commerce contract to which it had no necessary relation.” Id. at 26 , 38 S.Ct. at 432 (emphasis added).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wallace Const. Co. v. Industrial Boiler Co.
Ala. · 1985 · confidence medium
The consequence of such a ruling if made in this case would be particularly emphasized by a consideration of the functions of the machinery composing the plant which was sold, of its complexity, of the necessity of its aggregation and unison with mechanical skill and precision in order that the result of the contract of sale — the ice plant purchased — might come into existence. . . ." (Emphasis added.) 247 U.S. at 24 -26 , 38 S.Ct. at 432.
cited Cited "see" Electrical Equipment Company, Inc. v. Daniel Hamm Drayage Company, D/B/A Daniel Hamm Company
8th Cir. · 1954 · signal: see · confidence high
See York Manufacturing Co. v. Colley, 247 U.S. 21 , 38 S.Ct. 430 , 62 L.Ed. 963 ; Annotations. 60 A.L.R. 986 , 101 A.L.R. 126 , 146 A. L.R. 941.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Diversacon Industries, Inc. v. National Bank of Commerce of Mississippi
5th Cir. · 1980 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., York Manufacturing Co. v. Colley, 247 U.S. 21 , 38 S.Ct. 430 , 62 L.Ed. 963 (1918). 13 The burden on interstate commerce is obvious in the present controversy.
cited Cited "see, e.g." American Fire Prevention Bureau, Inc. v. Automatic Sprinkler Co. of America
S.D.N.Y. · 1941 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare York Manufacturing Co. v. Colley, 247 U.S. 21, 24, 25 , 38 S.Ct. 430 , 62 L.Ed. 963 , 11 A.L.R. 611 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ex Parte Southwestern Surety Insurance Company, Petitioner
28, Original.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 20, 1918.
247 U.S. 19
Mr. Hayden Johnson and Mr. Thomas M. Fields for petitioner, Mr. R. Randolph Hicks for respondent.
White.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

Memorandum opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice White,

by direction of the court.

The statute (c. 280, 28 Stat. 278; c. 778, 33 Stat. 811) makes the. district court of the district in which work contracted to be done for the United States is to be performed the forum for the assertion by supply creditors or material men of their claims against the contractor and the surety on the bond. It moreover authorizes one suit by all for the purpose of enforcing the liability of the surety. In the light of these provisions and their settled interpretation all the contentions of the petitioner but one which we shall hereafter separately notice are so completely foreclosed by previous authorities as to require only reference to them. United States v. Congress Construction Co., 222 U. S. 199; Illinois Surety Co. v. Peeler, 240 U. S. 214; Illinois Surety Co. v. John Davis Co., 244 U. S. 376. Indeed so certain is. this the case that .as to the principal one of the questions, the power of the court, when raised at this term it was treated as not open to controversy and was hence disposed of by a per curiam opinion. Hopkins v. Ellington & Guy, 246 U. S. 655.

The one subject which we postponed considering is the contention that rights of some of the claimants were asserted after the one-year period of limitation which the statute fixes. But this depends upon facts which are not before us, and besides involves a question within the competency of the court to decide concerning which therefore there is no basis for granting the writ of prohibition or sanctioning a resort to any other extraordinary legal remedy. See In re New York & Porto Rico S. S. Co., 155 U. S. 523; Ex parte Oklahoma, 220 U. S. 191.

It follows therefore that the rule must be and it is di¿. charged.

Rule discharged.