Mineral Resources, Inc. v. Mahnomen Construction Co. (1971)

Minnesota courts have repeatedly held that “strict compliance with Section 574.31 is a condition precedent to the bringing of an action against a surety on a contractor bond.” See Spetz & Berg, 353 N.W.2d at 235 ; accord Mineral Res., 289 Minn, at 421, 184 N.W.2d at 786 (“[A] materialman’s right to bring an action on the bond is nonexistent in the absence of strict compliance with the statutory requirement of filing notice.”); Ceco Steel, 208 Minn, at 372, 294 N.W. at 213 (“…

We accordingly hold that, because of its failure to file the notice required by § 574.31, plaintiff is barred from maintaining this action .... 289 Minn. at 421-22 , 184 N.W.2d at 786 (footnotes omitted).

This court has similarly held that “we are not inclined to give shelter under Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 51, where counsel by failure to object have tacitly agreed to the instructions of the court.” Mineral Resources, Inc. v. Mahnomen Const. Co. 289 Minn. 412, 418 , 184 N. W. 2d 780, 784 (1971), citing Knutson v. Arrigoni Brothers Co. 275 Minn. 408, 415 , 147 N. W. 2d 561, 566 (1966), and Hemming v. Ald, Inc. 279 Minn. 38, 46 , 155 N. W. 2d 384, 390 (1967).

Thus, we held that the statute “required strict observance on [the plaintiffs’] part of the filing of such notice with the proper officer.” Id. at 372 , 294 N.W. at 213 (emphasis added); accord Mineral Res., Inc. v. Mahnomen Const. Co., 289 Minn. 412, 421 , 184 N.W.2d 780, 786 (1971) (stating that the right “to bring an action on the bond is nonexistent in the absence of strict compliance with the statutory requirement of filing notice”).