2 For Federal legislation concerning the construction of public buildings in the District of Columbia, see 30 Stats, at L., p. 906, c. 218 (Act of February 28, 1899).

3 Guaranty Co. v. Pressed Brick Co., 191 U. S. 416, 48 L. ed. 242; Hill v. American Surety Co., 200 U. S. 197, 50 L. ed. 437; Mankin v. Ludowioi-Cela-don Co., 215 U. S. 535, 54 L. ed. 315; Title Guaranty & Trust Co. v. Crane Co., 219 U. S. 24, 55 L. ed. 72; United States Fidelity Co. v. Bartlett, 231 U. S. 237, 58 L. ed. 200; Equitable Surety Co. v. McMillan, 234 U. S. 448, 58 L. ed. 1394; A. Bryant Co. v. N. Y. Steam Fitting Co., 235 U. S. 327, 59 L. ed. 263; Illinois Surety Co. v. Peeler, 240 U. S. 214, 240 L. ed. 609; Illinois Surety Co. v. John Davis Co., 244 U. S. 376, 61 L. ed. 1206 [affirming judgment, United States v. Illinois Surety Co., 226 Fed. 653. 141 C. C. A. 409]; George H. Sampson Co. v. Commonwealth. 202 Mass. 326. 88 N. E. 911; McCarthy Co. v. Rendle, 222 Mass. 405, 111 N. E. 39; Bay City v. Sandberg, 83 Or. 268. 163 Pac. 444.

4 United States v. Brent, 236 Fed. 771; McCarthy Co. v. Rendle. 222 Mass. 405, 111 N. E. 39; Bay City v. Sandberg, 83 Or. 268, 163 Pac. 444.

5 United States Fidelity Co. v. Bartlett. 231 U. S. 237, 58 L. ed. 200.

6 Title Guaranty & Trust Co. v. Crane

Co., 219 U. S. 24, 55 L. ed. 72; Illinois Surety Co. v. John Davis Co.. 244 U. S. 376, 61 L. ed. 1206 [affirming judgment. United States v. Illinois Surety Co., 226 Fed. 653, 141 C. C. A. 4091.

7 Title Guaranty & Trust Co. v. Crane Co., 219 U. S. 24, 55 L. ed. 72; Illinois Surety Co. v. John Davis Co., 244 U. S. 376, 61 L. ed. 1206 [affirming judgment, United States v. Illinois Surety Co., 226 Fed. 653, 141 C. C. A. 409].

A different result was reached in an action upon a bond given under the Wisconsin statute, and it was held that such bond did not cover freight for materials used in the construction of a public building. Wisconsin Brick Co. v. National Surety Co.. 164 Wis. 585, 160 N. W. 1044.

8 National Surety Co. v. United States, 228 Fed. 577, 143 C. C. A. 99. Such as drills. National Surety Co. v. United States. 228 Fed. 577. 143 C. C. A. 99.

9 National Surety Co. v. United States. 228 Fed. 577, 143 C. C. A. 99.

10 National' Surety Co. v. United States, 228 Fed. 677. 143 C. C. A. 99.

11 George H. Sampson Co. v. Commonwealth. 202 Mass. 326, 88 N. E. 911.

12 Concrete Steel Co. v. Rowles Co., 101 Neb. 400. 163 N. W. 323.

13 National Surety Co. v. United States. 228 Fed. 577, 143 C. C. A. 99; Carotens Packing Co. v. Mitchell, 95 Wash. 72, 163 Pac. 1.

14Carstens Packing Co. v. Mitchell, 95 Wash. 72, 163 Pac. 1.

15 United States v. Lowrance, 236 Fed. 1006.

16 Bankers' Surety Co. v. Maxwell, 222 Fed. 797, 138 C. C. A. 345.

17 Illinois Surety Co. v. Davis Co., 244 U. S. 376, 61 L. ed. 1206 [affirming judgment. United States v. Illinois Surety Co., 226 Fed. 653, 141 C. C. A. 409].

See also, Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. United States. 229 Fed. 127. 143 C. C. A. 403; George H. Sampson Co. v. Commonwealth. 202 Mass. 326, 88 N. E. 911.

18Rodgers v. Fidelity &, Deposit Co., 89 Wash. 316, 154 Pac. 444; Carstens Packing Co. v. Mitchell, 95 Wash. 72, 163 Pac. 1.

19 Illinois Surety Co. v. Davis Co., 244 U. S. 376, 61 L. ed. 1206 [affirming judgment, United States v. Illinois Surety Co., 226 Fed. 653, 141 C. C. A. 409]; Columbia County v. Consolidated Contract Co.. 83 Or. 251, 163 Pac. 438.

20 Columbia County v. Consolidated Contract Co., 83 Or. 251. 163 Pac. 438.

21 Illinois Surety Co. v. John Davis Co., 244 U. S. 376, 61 L. ed. 1206 [affirming judgment. United States v. Illinois Surety Co., 226 Fed. 653].

22 People's National Bank v. Corse, 133 Tenn. 720, 182 S. W. 917.

Abutting property owners can not enforce a bond which is given under such statute for the benefit of laborers and materialmen.23

If a bond purports to be an indemnity bond for the benefit of the promisee, a third person can not enforce such bond because of the provisions of a statute which purport to give such third person a right of action upon such a bond, if such provision is unconstitutional,24 as where such provision is not fairly expressed in the title of the act, in violation of a mandatory constitutional provision.25

Even under a constitutional statute requiring a bond to protect laborers and materialmen, it is held that sureties can not be held liable on a bond which does not, by its terms, purport to provide for paying such claims.26 A provision in the contract, by which the contractor agrees to furnish material, can not impose upon the sureties on his bond the duty of paying for material which he has purchased, if the bond does not purport to include such liability.27