208. of the other contentions, and in the brief | brings up for review the judgment of that of counsel the contention is made to de-court affirming that of the circuit court of pend upon the view, rejected by the court of the eastern district of New York in favor appeals of the state, that the act of 1902 of the defendant in error* (plaintiff below) made a change in the law, and that only the against the plaintiff in error for the sum owners of distilled spirits in bond are re- of $2,054.23. The action was brought in quired to pay interest "upon taxes settled the circuit court above mentioned, in the at the time they were due." The effect of name of the United States, for the use and the act of 1902 has been considered and it benefit of Struthers Wells Company against is only necessary to add that the distinction the plaintiff in error, and against the indimade by the taxing statutes of the state be-vidual defendant Flaherty, as well as one tween distilled spirits in bond and other Lande, upon a bond dated December 10, property does not constitute a discrimina-| 1903, executed by Flaherty as principal, and tion condemned by the 14th Amendment. the above-mentioned plaintiff in error as The power of the state to classify persons surety, by which they were held bound in and property in its legislation is well estab- the sum of $40,000, to be paid the United lished and the power is not transcended by States as liquidated damages, the condition the statutes under review. Billings v. Illi- of the obligation being that if Flaherty, his nois, 188 U. S. 97, 47 L. ed. 400, 23 Sup. successors, heirs, etc., should well and truly Ct. Rep. 272. execute the contract annexed to the bond, which he had entered into with Colonel W. A. Jones, U. S. A., engineer, of the fifth lighthouse district, for and in behalf of the United States, by which Flaherty covenanted and agreed to completely construct and deliver the metal work for the Baltimore lighthouse, Maryland, according to all the conditions of the said contract, and should promptly make payments to all persons supplying said Flaherty labor and materials in the prosecution of the work provided for in such contract, then the obligation was to be void; otherwise to remain in full force and virtue. Judgment affirmed. (209 U. S. 306) UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUAR- V. UNITED STATES FOR THE USE AND Statutes retroactive effect matters of procedure. Those provisions, if any, governing procedure, contained in the amendment made by the act of February 24, 1905 (33 Stat. at L. 811, chap. 778, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1907, p. 709), to the act of August 13, 1894 (28 Stat. at L. 278, chap. 280, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 2523), for the protection of persons furnishing materials and labor for the construction of public works, will not be given a retroactive effect so as to apply to existing causes of action, where such amendatory statute, which consists of but one section, contains various provisions dealing with substantive rights, which must be regarded as prospective in their operation. [No. 154.] It was averred in the complaint that the action was brought in the name of the United States by Struthers Wells Company, for its use and benefit, against the plaintiff in error and Flaherty (and also one Lande, who had been joined with Flaherty in the contract), pursuant to the act of Congress of August 13, 1894. See 28 Stat. at L. 278, chap. 280, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 2523. The section is set forth in the margin.t +28 Stat. at L. chapter 280, p. 278: "Be it enacted, etc., That hereafter any person or persons entering into a formal contract with the United States for the construction of any public building, or the prosecution Argued March 5, 1908. Decided April 6, and completion of any public work, or for 1908. N ERROR to the United States Circuit IN Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to review a judgment which affirmed a judgment of the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of New York, in favor of plaintiff, in an action on a bond given by a con. tractor for public work. Affirmed. Statement by Mr. Justice Peckham: This is a writ of error to the circuit court of appeals for the second circuit, which repairs upon any public building or public work, shall be required, before commencing with good and sufficient sureties, with the such work, to execute the usual penal bond, additional obligations that such contractor or contractors shall promptly make pay. ments to all persons supplying him or them labor and materials in the prosecution of the work provided for in such contract; and any person or persons making application therefor, and furnishing affidavit to the Department under the direction of which said work is being, or has been, prosecuted, that labor or materials for the prosecution of such work has been supplied by him or them, *311 The amend under the provisions of the original act of Congress, and the materials were furnished The Struthers Wells Company, under an applies to the case before us. agreement with the defendants Flaherty and ment is set forth in the margin.† Lande, and in or about the month of March, The record shows that the contract be 1904, supplied to them certain materials, de-tween Flaherty and the United States was scribed in the complaint, for use by them in entered into December 10, 1903, and the mathe prosecution of the work which they had terial was furnished to Flaherty by the contracted with the United States to do in Struthers Wells Company in March, 1904. constructing the metal work for the Balti-It thus appears that the bond was executed more lighthouse, as mentioned in the bond. The material furnished by the company was of the value of $1,890.25. The company duly performed all the conditions of its contract with the defendants, which it had "Be it enacted, etc., That the act entitled agreed to perform, and made delivery as 'An Act for the Protection of Persons Furprovided for in its agreement, and by reanishing Materials and Labor for the Conson of the premises there became due and struction of Public Works,' approved Aupayable to the company from the defend-ty-four, is hereby amended so as to read as gust thirteenth, eighteen hundred and nineants, including the plaintiff in error, the sum of $1,890.25, with interest from June 7, 1904, no part of which has been paid. Judgment was demanded for that sum, with interest, as stated. The action was commenced on the 12th of April, 1905. The plaintiff in error demurred to the complaint on the ground, first, that the court had no jurisdiction of the person of the defendant the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company; second, that the court had not jurisdiction of the subject of the action; and, third, that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendant the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company. This demurrer was overruled, with leave to the defendant to answer, which the defendant refused to do, and thereupon judgment was entered for the plaintiff against it, which was affirmed by the circuit court of appeals. Mr. Leonidas Dennis for plaintiff in +Chapter 778, 33 Stat. at L. p. 811, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1907, p. 709: follows: ""That hereafter any person or persons entering into a formal contract with the United States for the construction of any public building, or the prosecution and completion of any public work, or for repairs upon any public building, or public work, work, to execute the usual penal bond, with shall be required, before commencing such good and sufficient sureties, with the additional obligation that such contractor or contractors shall promptly make payments to all persons supplying him or them with labor and materials in the prosecution of the work provided for in such contract; and any person, company, or corporation who construction or repair of any public building has furnished labor or materials used in the or public work, and payment for which has not been made, shall have the right to intervene and be made a party to any action instituted by the United States on the bond of the contractor, and to have their rights and claims adjudicated in such action, and judgment rendered thereon, subject, howment of the United States. ever, to the priority of the claim and judg If the full amount of the liability of the surety on said bond is insufficient to pay the full amount of said claims and demands, then, after pay ing the full amount due the United States, the remainder shall be distributed pro rata among said interveners. If no suit should be brought by the United States within six tlement of said contract, then the person or months from the completion and final setpersons supplying the contractor with labor and materials shall, upon application therefor, and furnishing affidavit to the Departand payment for which has not been made, ment under the direction of which said work shall be furnished with a certified copy of has been prosecuted, that labor or materials said contract and bond, upon which said for the prosecution of such work has been person or persons supplying such labor and supplied by him or them, and payment for materials shall have a right of action, and which has not been made, be furnished with shall be authorized to bring suit in the a certified copy of said contract and bond, name of the United States for his or their upon which he or they shall have a right of use and benefit against said contractor and action, and shall be and are hereby authorsureties, and to prosecute the same to finalized to bring suit in the name of the United judgment and execution: Provided, That such action and its prosecution shall involve the United States in no expense." error. Mr. Herbert A. Heyn and Messrs Heyn & Covington for defendant in error. Mr. Justice Peckham, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court: The demurrer put in by the plaintiff in error is founded upon an amendment of the above-mentioned act, which, it is contended, States in the circuit court of the United States in the district in which said contract was to be performed and executed, irrespec ⚫812 *313 1907. UNITED STATES F. & G. CO. v. 7. 8. USE OF S. W. CO. Flaherty while that act was in force and before its amendment. The legal rights of the Struthers Wells Company had become vested before the enactment of the amendment. It is contended on the part of the plaintiff in error that the passage of the amendment (February 24, 1905) made it necessary for the defendant in error to follow its provisions when it commenced this action on the 12th of April, 1905. It is argued that the amendment prescribes the procedure to be followed by materialmen in enforcing claims against a surety on a bond of the nature of the one in suit; that, as amended, the law prohibited a materialman from commencing any action in any district other than that in which the contract was to be performed (in this case* the Maryland district of the fourth circuit), and also not until after the complete performance of the contract for the performance of which the bond was given, and until the expiration of six months after such completion, during which time the United States alone has the right to commence an action. The plaintiff in error insists that, although the cause of action herein arose before the passage of the amendment, the action itself not having been commenced until after that time, all the provisions of the amendment regulating the enforcement of such cause of action apply to the action before us, as they do not affect the cause of action itself, but only the method of enforcing the same. In other words, it is contended that the amendment is to have retroactive effect in all matters relative to procedure, and that, as so construed, this action was improperly brought in the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of New York, and that it was prematurely brought because it does not appear that at the time of the commencement of this action the contract tive of the amount in controversy in such suit, and not elsewhere, for his or their use and benefit, against said contractor and his sureties, and to prosecute the same to final judgment and execution: Provided, That where suit is instituted by any of such creditors on the bond of the contractor it shall not be commenced until after the complete performance of said contract and final settlement thereof; and shall be commenced within one year after the performance and final settlement of said contract, and not later: And provided further, That where suit is so instituted by a creditor or by creditors, only one action shall be brought, and any creditor may file his claim in such action and be made party thereto within one year from the completion of the work under said contract, and not later. If the recovery on the bond should be inadequate to pay the amounts found due to all of said creditors, judgment shall be given to each had been completed, or that six months had expired since its completion, or that the United States had not itself sued on the bond. The act which is amended consists of but one material section, the 2d section providing only for the comparatively unimportant matter of security for costs. The act amending the section also consists of but one section. The question is whether the amended act applies to this case. There are certain principles which have been adhered to with great strictness by the courts in relation to the construction of statutes, as to whether they are or are not retroactive in their effect. The presumption is very strong that a statute was not meant to act retrospectively, and it ought never to receive such a construction if it is susceptible of any other. It ought not to receive such a construction unless the words used are so clear, strong, and imperative that no other meaning can be annexed to them, or unless the intention of the legislature cannot be otherwise satisfied. Dash v. Van Kleeck, 7 Johns. 499, 5 Am. Dec. 291; Jackson ex dem. Hicks v. Van Zandt, 12 Johns. 169; United States v. Heth, 3 Cranch, 399, 414, 2 L. ed. 479, 484; Southwestern Coal & Improv. Co. v. McBride, 185 U. S. 499, 503, 46 L. ed. 1010, 1012, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 763; United States v. American Sugar Ref. Co. 202 U. S. 563, 577, 50 L. ed. 1149, 1152, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 717. The language of the amended act is prospective, as it provides "that hereafter any person or persons entering into a formal contract with the United States," etc. That language, standing alone, would leave little doubt as to the intention of Congress in the matter of the taking effect of the amendment. It is urged, however, that as the amend creditor pro rata of the amount of the recovery. The surety on said bond may pay into court, for distribution among said claimants and creditors, the full amount of the sureties' liability, to wit, the penalty named in the bond, less any amount which said surety may have had to pay to the United States by reason of the execution of said bond, and, upon so doing, the surety will be relieved from further liability: Provided further, That in all suits instituted under the provisions of this act such personal notice of the pendency of such suits, informing them of their right to intervene, as the court may order, shall be given to all known creditors, and, in addition thereto, notice of publication in some newspaper of general circulation, published in the state or town where the contract is being performed, for at least three successive weeks, the last publication to be at least three months before the time limited therefor.'" *314 *316 *315 ment in this respect but reiterates the lan- | claims of the other creditors, would be the guage of the original act, the use of the amount due. In other words, these provi. word "hereafter" in the commencement of sions, contained in the single section of the the amendment ought not to have the sig- act, are to be considered as prospective only, nificance which would otherwise attach to and as applicable to bonds executed subseit, because it is simply in this particular quently to the passage of the amendment. re-enacting the law as it already stood. There is another most important amendment, by which the materialman's right to sue is suspended until after the completion of the work and final settlement and for six months thereafter, during which the United States can alone sue upon the bond. stead of a right to sue at once upon the nonpayment of his claim, he is precluded from doing so, perhaps for years. In There is considerable force in the suggestion that the word "hereafter" is not to receive the weight which, in other circumstances, it ought to have. The question is, however, one* as to the intention of Congress, and when we come to look at the provisions of the statute, as amended, we are convinced that Congress did not intend that the amendment should apply to cases where the bond had already been executed, the work done, the respective rights of the par-ble to causes of action already accrued, proties settled, and the cause of action already in existence. If Congress had intended otherwise, we think it would have still further amended the original act by providing in plain language that the amendment should apply to all cases, and not be confined to the future. The plaintiff in error contends that where an amendment to an act relates only to procedure, it takes effect upon causes of action existing when the amendment was passed; and hence that part of the amendment in question applies and prevents the taking of jurisdiction by the circuit court for the eastern district of New York. It is admitted by the plaintiff in error that the act is not confined to procedure, but deals with substantive rights in some instances, one of which is the provision granting a preference to the United States over all other creditors. In such case counsel admits that the provision must be construed and held to apply to bonds executed subsequent to the enactment of the statute, and to such bonds alone. Under the statute of 1894 no such preference could be obtained. American Surety Co. v. Lawrenceville Cement Co. 96 Fed. 25; United States v. Heaton, 63 C. C. A. 156, 128 Fed. 414. It would follow necessarily that, if the full amount of the liability of the surety on the bond were insufficient to pay all the claims and demands, the provision that, after paying the full amount due the United States, the remainder only should be distributed pro rata among the interveners, would also be a substantive amendment, and not one of procedure. Hence counsel admits that the full amount which may be due the United States depends upon whether the bond was executed prior or subsequent to the amendment of the statute; that, if the bond were executed prior thereto, the government is only entitled to its pro rata share, while, if executed subsequently, the full amount of its claim, regardless of the Although the time in which to commence action may be shortened and made applica vided a reasonable time is left in which such actions may be commenced (Terry v. Anderson, 95 U. S. 628, 24 L. ed. 365; Wilson v. Iseminger, 185 U. S. 55, 46 L. ed. 804, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 573), yet that is a different principle from taking away absolutely a present right to sue until a period of time, measured possibly by years, shall have elapsed. These various provisions are all contained in the same section of the statute, and there is not much of it left to be made retrospective, as matter of procedure, after these other provisions have been held to be prospective only. If the limitation as to the district in which the suit upon the bond could be brought were to be regarded as simply matter of procedure (which we do not assert), we still think it is not to be construed as applying retrospectively. As it is only a question of intention we are not prepared to hold that the section is prospective in its operation in regard to all its other provisions, but retrospective in the one instance, as to the district in which the suit is to be commenced. Even matters of procedure are not necessarily retrospective in their operation in a statute, and we see no reason for holding that this statute, of but, one section, should be split up in its construction, and one portion of it made ap-i plicable to cases already existing and other portions applicable only to the future. We are convinced Congress did not intend such separation. Viewing the whole section, we think Congress meant that only in future cases should the provisions of the amendment apply, although some trifling portion of those provisions might be regarded, technically, as in the nature of procedure. It is therefore wiser to hold the entire section governed by the usual rule and as applying only to the future. The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals was right, and is affirmed. *318 (209 U. S. 317) V. NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, D. G. Drake, Fred A. Busse, Postmaster, Frank I. Miller, and A. J. Fleidlich. Courts - interference Department. some other way designated, upon the exterior of the envelope or wrapper containing such mail matter, or otherwise, as designed for the National Life Insurance Company of the United States of America, and not for the National Life Insurance Company. with Postoffice Wherefore, it is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the bill of complaint herein, as amended, be and the same is dismissed for want of equity." This judgment was af firmed by the circuit court of appeals. The ruling of the Postoffice Department, that mail addressed to the "National Life Insurance Company" at Chicago, Illinois, without street or office address, be delivered to the corporation of that name, and not to a company subsequently incorporated, with a similar name, will not be interfered with because, judging from past experience, the very great majority of the mail so addressed is, in fact, intended for the latter company. [No. 162.] Upon the trial, among others, the following facts were agreed upon: An insurance company known as the National Life Insurance Company of the United States of America was duly incorporated by special act of Congress in the year 1868. Its chief office and place of business was, by its charter, located in the city of Washington, District of Columbia. The corporation Aroned March 9, 10, 1908. Decided April thereupon entered upon the life insurance A 6, 1908. PPEAL from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to review a decree which affirmed a decree of the Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, dismissing, for want of equity, a bill to enjoin the delivery of mail to the addressee, on the ground that such mail was, in fact, intended for the complainant, though not addressed to it. Affirmed. Statement by Mr. Justice Peckham: The appellant commenced this suit in equity against the defendants on the 18th day of July, 1905, in the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of Illinois, eastern division, for the purpose of obtaining an injunction against the corporation defendant, restraining it and its manager, the defendant D. G. Drake, at Chicago, Illinois, from receiving, and the Chicago postmaster and the letter carriers named as defendants from delivering, mail matter directed to "National Life Insurance Company, Chicago, Illinois," to the company so designated, on the ground that, in fact, such mail matter was intended for the complainant, even though not addressed to it. An answer of the corporation defendant and that of its manager was duly filed and served, to which the complainant filed a replication. After a hearing it was adjudged by the circuit court "that the defendant National Life Insurance Company is entitled to have delivered to it such mail as may come to the postoffice at Chicago addressed 'National Life Insurance Company, Chicago, Illinois,' unless such mail shall also bear the street number of the office of business and continued to transact that business and to seek new business of that kind until 1881. *The company was duly admitted to do business in the state of Illinois on or about August 16, 1868, and in the year 1874 it established in the city of Chicago, Illinois, what is denominated its principal branch office, and thereafter continuously transacted in the city of Chicago nearly all of the business usually transacted at the home office of an insurance company. In 1881 the company ceased to solicit or to write any new business, and such omission continued until 1900, and during that period the business transacted by it at its principal branch office in Chicago was such as was incident to the care and preservation of the business written prior to 1881. Between those years the company was suffering a natural liquidation, its outstanding policies decreasing from 5,966 in number to 1,317, while its policies in Illinois had decreased from 394 to 100. In the year 1900 the company again began to solicit new business, and up to March, 1904, transacted at its principal branch office in Chicago all of the business usually transacted at the chief or national office of an insurance company. In March, 1904, the complainant was incorporated under the laws of the state of Illinois, with its principal office and place of business in the National Life building, at 159 La Salle street, in the city of Chicago, and the complainant forthwith took over all the property and business of the Washington, District of Columbia, corporation, and continued thereafter to transact the business theretofore transacted by the latter corporation. Prior to this time (March, |