In the case of Equitable Surety Company v. United States of America, to the use of McMillan in 1913, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a surety company could be held liable for payments made by its principal after defaulting on a contract with the U.S. government. The dispute arose from a construction project where contractor John R. McMillan defaulted and his surety, Equitable Surety Company, was required to complete it under their bond agreement. However, during this process some subcontractors were not paid fully by McMillan before he defaulted and they sought payment from Equitable instead. The court ruled that as per federal law at that time (the Heard Act), once a contractor defaults on an obligation guaranteed by a surety bond, all unpaid claims become immediately due and payable directly from the sureties involved - regardless if any payments were made post-default or not. Therefore, even though some payments had been made after defaulting which reduced what would have been owed otherwise; these did not absolve or reduce liability for remaining amounts still outstanding towards those who hadn't received full compensation yet – such as subcontractors in this instance.

In the dissenting opinion for Equitable Surety Company v. United States of America, to the use of McMillan, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's interpretation of a federal statute regarding sureties on bonds. He argued that Congress intended to protect those who had claims against defaulting contractors by allowing them to sue in their own name or in the name of the United States. The majority held that only unpaid laborers and materialmen could bring such suits, but Holmes contended this was an unnecessarily narrow reading of congressional intent. He believed any person suffering damages due to a contractor’s breach should be able to seek redress under this law, not just specific groups identified by courts' interpretations over time.