Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Hardaway v. National Surety Company

• 1908 • 211 U.S. 552 • Fuller Court
In the case of Hardaway v. National Surety Company, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over a construction contract and its associated surety bond. The plaintiff, Hardaway, was contracted to build an aqueduct for the city of Columbus in Georgia but failed to complete it within the specified time frame due to unforeseen difficulties. As a result, he faced penalties as per his contract's terms which were guaranteed by National Surety Company under their surety bond agreement. When sued by...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Fuller Court
Term: 1908
Docket: 44
211 U.S. 552
29 S. Ct. 202
53 L. Ed. 321
1909 U.S. LEXIS 1786
Argued: Dec 08, 1908

Hardaway v. National Surety Company

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Hardaway v. National Surety Company, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over a construction contract and its associated surety bond. The plaintiff, Hardaway, was contracted to build an aqueduct for the city of Columbus in Georgia but failed to complete it within the specified time frame due to unforeseen difficulties. As a result, he faced penalties as per his contract's terms which were guaranteed by National Surety Company under their surety bond agreement. When sued by National Surety for recovery of these penalties paid on his behalf, Hardaway argued that he should not be held liable because his delay was caused by unexpected obstacles beyond his control such as labor strikes and material shortages. The court ruled against him stating that these circumstances did not absolve him from liability since they could have been anticipated and factored into project planning at outset; hence they didn't constitute "unforeseeable" events or force majeure conditions relieving him from contractual obligations. Therefore, according to this ruling, contractors are expected to account for potential delays when entering contracts and cannot evade penalty payments if they fail to do so.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Hardaway v. National Surety Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold a surety company liable for an employer's failure to pay wages was unjustified. The dissenting justices contended that the bond in question only covered losses resulting from fraudulent or dishonest acts by employees, not failures by employers to meet their financial obligations. They further pointed out that there were no allegations of fraud or dishonesty involved in this case; instead, it revolved around a simple inability or unwillingness on part of the employer to pay its workers. Therefore, they believed holding the surety company responsible under these circumstances stretched beyond what could reasonably be expected under such bonds and set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving similar issues.

Opinion written by Justice WRDay
Decided: Jan 04, 1909
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms