PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND PUBLIC WORKS; BOND OF CONTRACTOR
Act 187 of 1905
570.101 Building, repairing, or ornamenting public works; bond of contractor required; exceptions.
Sec. 1.
When public buildings or other public works are about to be built, repaired, or ornamented under contract at the expense of the state, or of any county, city, village, township, or school district thereof, it shall be the duty of the board of officers or agents, contracting on behalf of the state, county, city, village, township, or school district, to require sufficient security by bond for the payment by the contractor of all subcontractors and for the payment for all labor performed and materials and certain supplies furnished and used in the erection, repairing, or ornamenting of the public buildings or works. However, if the contractor is a common carrier as defined in section 3 of Act No. 300 of the Public Acts of 1909, as amended, being section 462.3 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, or the designated operator of a state subsidized railroad, the contractor may provide an irrevocable letter of credit from a state or national bank or a state or federally chartered savings and loan association instead of the bond.
History: 1905, Act 187, Eff. Sept. 16, 1905 ;-- CL 1915, 14827 ;-- Am. 1925, Act 384, Eff. Aug. 27, 1925 ;-- CL 1929, 13132 ;-- CL 1948, 570.101 ;-- Am. 1982, Act 10, Imd. Eff. Feb. 17, 1982
FormerLaw Notes:
See Act 94 of 1883, being How., §§ 8411a to 8411c, which was amended by Act 45 of 1885, being CL 1897, §§ 10743 to 10745.
Notes of Decisions
Kammer Asphalt Paving Co. v. East China Twp. Schs., 504 N.W.2d 635 (Mich. 1993).
· cites it 4× “other public works are about to be built, repaired or ornamented under contract at the expense of the State, or of any county, city, village, township or school district thereof, it shall be the duty of the board of officers or agents, contracting on behalf of the State, county,…”
Charles W. Anderson Co. v. Argonaut Ins., 233 N.W.2d 691 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975).
· cites it 6× “Unlike the provisions of MCLA 570.101 et seq.; MSA 26.321 et seq., however, the Legislature has spelled out the consequences befalling the claimant "not having a direct contractual relationship with the principal contractor" who fails to comply with either notice requirement: He…”
Roulo v. Auto. Club of Mich., 192 N.W.2d 237 (Mich. 1971).
· cites it 2× “There, township officials were held personally liable to the supplier by reason of their failure to secure the contractor’s bond as required by MCLA § 570.101 (Stat Ann 1970 Rev §26.321).”
Barnes & Sweeney Enter., Inc v. City of Hazel Park, 425 N.W.2d 572 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 2× “The predecessor statute, which was created by 1905 PA 187 and compiled at MCL 570.101 et seq.; MSA 26.321 et seq., imposed a duty on the governmental body contracting the work to require sufficient security posted by bond for the payment of subcontractors and materials.”
Ellis v. Phillips, 110 N.W.2d 772 (Mich. 1961).
· cites it 3× “That decree was based upon a finding by the chancellor that defendant was liable to certain creditors of Redford Cement Floor Company by virtue of a payment bond he had filed pursuant to the provisions of PA 1905, No 187 (CL 1948, § 570.101 et seq. [Stat Ann 1953 Rev § 26.”
William C Reichenbach Co. v. State, 288 N.W.2d 622 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979).
“MCL 570.101; MSA 26.321. However, subsequent to the decision in Weinberg, this statute has been limited in scope to construction and maintenance contracts of the state highway commission.”
Dover & Co. v. United Pac. Ins., 197 N.W.2d 126 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972).
· cites it 4× “Now that the Legislature has eliminated altogether any requirement of notice of claim by subcontractors under public construction, alteration, or repair contracts except construction and maintenance contracts of the State Highway Commission [6] thereby evincing, at the very…”
Hub Elec. Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 400 F. Supp. 77 (E.D. Mich. 1975).
“§ 570.101 et seq.) contained but a single notice requirement, that being within sixty days after furnishing the last material.”
Rasins Landscape & Assocs., Inc. v. Michigan Dep't of Transp., 528 F. App'x 441 (6th Cir. 2013).
“While the Department must require prime contractors to post bond by obtaining a surety to guarantee payments to subcontractors, see Mich. Comp. Laws § 570.101 , an unpaid subcontractor’s remedy is to sue the surety, not to request that the Department compel the surety to pay,…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.