In New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Tex. Indus., Inc., 414 S.W.2d 914 (Tex. 1967), the trial court had granted summary judgment against the surety and in favor of the beneficiary on a payment bond claim. Id. at 914. The trial court awarded the beneficiary attorney's fees even though article 5160, section 2253's predecessor, did not allow for the recovery of attorney's fees at the time. Id. at 914-15. The surety argued that the attorney's fees were nonetheless sustainable under article 2226, the progenitor of chapter 38 of the civil practice and remedies code. Id. at 916. But the court disagreed, reasoning as follows: "Article 2226 has no application to the claim of an unpaid materialman against the surety on an Article 5160 payment bond. The claim and ensuing suit are grounded entirely on the surety obligation. . . . Respondent forcefully argues that Article 2226 can be extended by implication to include the claim against the surety by reading this statute with Article 5160 which was enacted for the purpose of guaranteeing full and prompt payment to labor and material claimants on public works projects. But we cannot thus supply by implication the necessary statutory basis for an award of attorney's fees. Such must be found in the terms of the legislative enactment." Id. The supreme court reversed the award of attorney's fees, declining to sustain the award under article 2226.