that phase, only a payment bond and no performance bond would be involved. The bankruptcy court regarded each pair of bonds as covering a separate part of the subcontract but all the bonds together as covering the entire subcontract. 3 . Eastern Indemnity also paid a claim of $135,-557 to one of Boggs’ suppliers but had recovered this sum in full depth the doctrine as applied in Texas); Fretz Construction v. Southern National Bank, 626 S.W.2d 478 (Tex.1981) (enforcing on promissory estoppel principles a promise that was both unconditional and without consideration and that was extended by a bank’s vice president in a letter to a construction company’s prospective surety, who relied upon the letter in deciding to issue payment and performance bonds); Fredo-nia State Bank, supra, at 253 (<HOLDING>); Preload Technology v. A.B. & J. Construction
recognizing estoppel based on bank officers conduct holding that a criminal acquittal does not have collateral estoppel effect on a later civil forfeiture proceeding based on the same conduct holding that estoppel was a question of fact recognizing claim against bank receiver recognizing the doctrine of collateral estoppel in agency proceedings