1380 (1975); Great Am. Ins., 492 F.2d at 825; Home Indem., 376 F.2d at 893; Newark Ins. Co., 169 F.Supp. at 957). In this case, all of the necessary elements are present for the court to conclude that the government violated its duty as a stakeholder with respect to Travelers’ subrogated equitable rights in the $32,718.99 of the contract balance that the government retained. First, “[ajbsent a viable allegation of full performance under the payment bond, the surety would be unable to invoke the doctrine of equitable subrogation.” Nova Casualty, 69 Fed.Cl. at 294; see U.S. Fid. & Guar., 475 F.2d at 1381 (citing American Sur. Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Mfg. Co., 296 U.S. 133, 136, 56 S.Ct. 9, 80 L.Ed. 105 (1935); North Denver Bank v. United States, 193 Ct.Cl. 225, 432 F.2d 466 (1970)) (<HOLDING>). Here, there is no dispute that Travelers
holding that the surety was not released to the extent of improper ly paid funds because the contractor had applied the released funds to progress on the contract holding that a surety has standing to sue for a progress payment released by the government after notification by the surety of unpaid subcontractors recognizing that the gjovernment as obligee owes no equitable duty to a surety  unless the surety notifies the government that the principal has defaulted under the bond  notice by the surety is essential before any governmental duty exists holding that a plaintiff surety had to pay all outstanding claims owed by the contractor or it otherwise would not be permitted to share in any retained funds held by the government holding that there is no privity of contract between the government and a surety since the government is not a party to the agreement between the surety and the contractor the government never undertakes an obligation to the surety