years later, in 1962, the Court again addressed the rights of sureties to recover funds retained by the government, but in this instance the issue was whether a trustee in bankruptcy of a government contractor or the contractor’s payment-bond surety had the superior claim. Pearlman, 371 U.S. at 133, 83 S.Ct. 232. In Pearlman, the Court revisited Prairie State and Henningsen, affirming that “[tjhese two cases ..., together with other cases that have followed them, establish the surety’s right to subrogation in [a retained] fund whether its bond be for performance or payment. ” Id. at 139, 83 S.Ct. 232 (internal footnote omitted) (emphasis added). The Court also rejected the argument that Munsey Trust overruled the holdings in Prairie State and Henningsen. Id. at 140-41, 83 S.Ct. 232 (<HOLDING>). Ultimately, the Court outlined the rights of
holding that munsey left the rule in prairie bank and henningsen undisturbed holding that the rule from prairie state and henningsen was left undisturbed by munsey trust and that it could not say that such a firmly established rule was so casually overruled holding successor national bank liable for punitive damages judgment against bank that merged into successor national bank holding that the tecon timing rule remains undisturbed holding that a bank customer did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in records maintained by the bank