Principal and Surety

• 19 CFR 24.3a - Customs bills; interest assessment; delinquency; notice to principal and surety.

• Code of Federal Regulations - Title 19: Customs Duties

• Principal and Surety

A contractual relationship whereby one party—the surety—agrees to pay the principal's debt or perform his or her obligation in cas...

• West's Encyclopedia of American Law
• Po–San

• 19 CFR 113.31 - Same party as principal and surety; attorney in fact.

• Code of Federal Regulations - Title 19: Customs Duties

• Water Works Supplies, Inc. v. Grooms Constr. Co., (Ohio 2003)

Principal and surety–payment bond contract–waiver of defense; Civ.R. 56.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Public Construction: Payment, Performance and Bid Bonds-a Look Under the Hood

A surety bond is not an insurance policy -- it is a guarantee in which the surety guarantees that the contractor, called the "principal" in the bond, will perform the "obligation" stated in the bond. If the principal fails to perform the obligation stated in the bond, both the principal and the surety are liable on the bond. Recognizing the need to protect taxpayers from contractor failure, Congress passed the Heard Act on Aug 13, 1894. The Act required surety bonds on all federally funded projects. The Miller Act of 1935 was the last major change in the public sector and is the current federal law requiring bonds on federal projects. The three types of surety bonds are: 1. bid bonds, 2. performance bonds, and 3. payment bonds. Suppliers and subcontractors should attempt to secure a cop...

• Business Credit
• Vol. 109 Nbr. 5, May 2007

• United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samson Eisner (Principal) and United Bonding Insurance Co. (Surety), Defendants-Appellants., 323 F.2d 38 (6th Cir. 1963)

Joseph C. Healy, Cincinnati, Ohio; Howell W. Vincent, Covington, Ky., on brief, for appellants. George H. Logan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Louisville, Ky.; ...

• Federal Circuits

• 31 USC 9306 - Sec. 9306. Surety corporations acting outside area of incorporation and place of principal office

• US Code - Title 31: Money and Finance

• United States of America, for and on Behalf of Taylor & Polk Construction, Incorporated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mill Valley Construction, Incorporated, as Principal; Hartford Fire Insurance Company, as Surety, Defendants-Appellees. United States of America, for and on Behalf of Taylor & Polk Construction, Incorporated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mill Valley Construction, Incorporated, as Principal; Hartford Fire Insurance Company, as Surety, Defendants-Appellants., 29 F.3d 154 (4th Cir. 1994)

ARGUED: Claron A. Robertson, III, Robertson & Sinkler, Charleston, SC, for appellant. Leonard Rose, Rose, Brouillette & Shapiro, P.C., Kansas City, MO...

• Federal Circuits

• United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samson Eisner (Principal) and United Bonding Insurance Co. (Surety), Defendants-Appellants., 329 F.2d 410 (6th Cir. 1964)

Joseph C. Healy, Covington, Ky., Howell W. Vincent, Covington, Ky., on brief, for appellants. George H. Logan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Louisville, Ky., Wi...

• Federal Circuits

• Insolvency Matters: Inter-Company Debts and Subordination

In the case In re SSSL Realisations (2000) Ltd [2006] 2 WLR 1369, administration orders had been made against several companies operating petrol stations, and subsequently the administrators sold the businesses. The deed of indemnity included subordination provisions postponing the indemnitors' rights in an insolvency, such as the right to prove as a creditor in competition with the surety. In the SSSL Realisations case there was no right of set off where both the principal debtor and surety were insolvent, but in another aspect of the appeal, Chadwick LJ looked to Australia. Section 178(3)(b) of the Insolvency Act 1986 is not in the same terms as Australian legislation, but it gives the liquidator power to disclaim onerous property. Back in the present day Chadwick LJ observed in the S...

• Credit Management
• Nbr. 9/2006, September 2006