The U.S. Supreme Court case Clifford F. MacEvoy Co. et al v United States for the Use and Benefit of Calvin Tomkins Co., 1943, revolved around a dispute over payment under the Miller Act which requires contractors on federal projects to provide performance bonds to protect subcontractors and suppliers in case of non-payment by the contractor. The main issue was whether or not a material supplier who had provided supplies directly to a sub-subcontractor could recover from the prime contractor's bond when they were not paid by their customer (the sub-subcontractor). The court ruled that only those having direct contractual relationships with either the principal contractor or any subcontractor are protected under this act, meaning that second-tier subcontractors or suppliers do not have rights against general contractors' surety bonds if unpaid for work performed on federal construction projects.

In the dissenting opinion for Clifford F. MacEvoy Co. et al. v United States for the Use and Benefit of Calvin Tomkins Co., Justice Robert H. Jackson argued that the majority's interpretation of Miller Act was incorrect, as it did not align with Congress' intent when passing this legislation in 1935 to protect subcontractors and suppliers on federal construction projects from non-payment by prime contractors. He contended that a materialman who supplies materials to a subcontractor should be considered as having a direct contractual relationship with a contractor under the Act, even if there is an intermediate party involved in their transaction such as another subcontractor or sub-subcontractor, which would make them eligible to sue for payment bonds provided by prime contractors under this law if they are unpaid for their work or materials supplied on these projects.