The opinion
Hoke, J.
Section 2445 of the Consolidated Statutes provides that every county, city, town, or other municipal corporation which lets a contract for building, repairing, or altering any building or public road or street shall require the contractor for such work (when the contract price exceeds $500) to give a bond before beginning thd work, and payable to said county, city, etc., conditioned for payment of all labor done or material and supplies furnished for said work; that said bond may be put in suit by any laborer or material and supply man having a valid claim; and further, that if the official of said county, city, or town, or other municipal corporation fails to require this bond, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, etc.
The contract in question provides that the construction company shall build and complete the sehoolhouse at Apex, N. C., providing all the materials, etc., therefor at their own expense, at the price of $58,083. There is no stipulation in the agreement that the contractor shall pay either the laborers or the materialmen, and a perusal of the instruments throughout will show that they are merely designed to secure the satisfactory and proper completion of a turnkey job, so far as the municipality is concerned, and that no interest
ultra
is provided for or contemplated. The case presented comes directly within the decisions of the Court in
McCausland v. Construction Co.,
172 N. C., 708 , and
Mfg. Co. v. Andrews,
165 N. C., 285 .
*416
Tbe bond signed as
surety by the
appellant Boyd is
that the
contract stall be faithfully performed, and, this contract, as stated, containing no stipulation binding bis principal to pay either laborers or materialmen, in our opinion, there has been no liability established against the surety.
The claimants, appellees, cite and very largely rely on
Ingold v. Hickory,
178 N. C., 614 , but the case is not an authority for their position. In that ease the bond given contained direct stipulation for the. payment of laborers and supply men engaged in the work, and expressly referred to the requirements of the statute in further explanation of the true intent and meaning. The decision in
Ingold's case
dealt chiefly with and rejected a claim by the surety that under an added stipulation he could restrict his obligation contrary to the statutory provision, and, as stated, gives no support to the position of appellee as to the liability of the surety on the facts of the present record.
In so far as the liability of the board of education, as such, is concerned, this statute, as it does, imposing a new duty and providing for its enforcement by indictment, on authority this remedy, and none other, must be pursued, and no civil liability will attach to them officially.
James v. Charlotte,
183 N. C., 630 -632;
S. v. R. R.,
145 N. C., 495 -499. Whether the members as individuals may be held civilly liable to claimants is not before us, as they have not been sued in that capacity.
As to any cases of this character to arise in the future, we consider it well to note that the Legislature of 1923 (chapter 100) has amended this section (2445) of the Consolidated Statutes so as to provide that every bond given by a contractor to counties, cities, towns, or other municipal corporations shall, notwithstanding its form, be conclusively presumed to have been taken pursuant to the statute, and the provisions of such statute shall be conclusively presumed to be written in such bond. Section 2 of the amended law provides further that only one action can be brought in such cases, all claimants to be duly notified, and if the aggregate sum shall exceed the amount of the bonds, there shall be a pro
rata
payment. The surety is also allowed, by paying into court in such suit the full amount of the penalty of the bond, tó be quit of any other or further liability thereon.
On appeal of plaintiffs, judgment affirmed.
On appeal of surety, judgment reversed.