## Facts

- Southern Painting Company of Tennessee, Inc. (Southern) contracted to perform two federal construction projects and furnished a Miller Act payment bond through United Pacific Insurance Company.
- Southern hired E. M. Silver, doing business as Silver Plumbing & Heating (Silver), as a subcontractor to furnish the labor and materials for the plumbing and heating work on the projects.
- Under the subcontract, Southern was to pay Silver a $10,000 lump sum and a percentage of net profit on certain additional work.
- Silver performed more than 90 percent of the subcontract work before the parties’ relationship ended.
- Southern had paid Silver $7,000 when the work stopped.
- Silver claimed Southern breached by refusing to let Silver complete the remaining work; Southern claimed Silver breached by failing to complete.
- Silver sued Southern and the surety in the name of the United States for his use, seeking recovery measured by the reasonable value of the work performed (quantum meruit). Silver sought a much larger sum than the ultimate award, and presented testimony from an experienced plumbing contractor as to value.
- After a bench trial, the United States District Court for the District of Kansas found Southern, not Silver, breached and entered judgment for Silver for $13,000 plus interest. Southern appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a subcontractor who is wrongfully prevented from completing performance may recover the reasonable value of labor and materials furnished in a Miller Act payment-bond action under a quantum meruit theory.
2. Whether Silver’s role and scope of work made him a “subcontractor” entitled to sue on the Miller Act payment bond.
3. Whether the evidence supported the district court’s valuation of Silver’s performance at $13,000 (in addition to the $7,000 already paid).
4. Whether interest could run from the date performance was stopped when the amount due was unliquidated and disputed.

## Decision

- The court held the suit could proceed on the payment bond for the value of labor and materials Silver supplied to the federal projects, even though Silver framed the measure of recovery in quantum meruit after Southern prevented completion.
- The court treated Silver as a subcontractor covered by the Miller Act because he undertook a specific, substantial part of the prime contract work (plumbing and heating) and supplied labor and materials for that work.
- The court upheld the district court’s finding that Southern breached by refusing to allow completion and that Silver could recover the reasonable value of what he furnished; the $13,000 award was supported by the record, including testimony on value.
- The court limited interest, allowing it only from the date of judgment because the claim was unliquidated and genuinely contested until adjudication.

## Legal Principles

- A Miller Act payment bond may be enforced by a subcontractor to recover for labor and materials furnished to a federal project, including recovery measured by the reasonable value of performance when the prime contractor wrongfully prevents completion.
- A party who has been wrongfully stopped from completing work may elect to recover in quantum meruit for the value of the benefit conferred rather than seek expectancy damages under the contract.
- For Miller Act purposes, a contractor who takes responsibility for a distinct and substantial portion of the prime contract work and supplies labor and materials for that portion is a “subcontractor” entitled to sue on the payment bond.
- When the amount owed is unliquidated and disputed, prejudgment interest generally does not accrue from the date of breach; it accrues from judgment.

## Conclusion

Southern’s refusal to allow Silver to finish constituted a breach, and Silver—as a covered subcontractor—could recover on the Miller Act bond for the reasonable value of labor and materials furnished, but interest was limited to accrual from the judgment date because the amount due was not fixed and was contested.


Southern Painting Company of Tennessee v. United States ex rel. Silver, 222 F.2d 431 (1955)