United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Bramwell
| Decision Date | 01 October 1923 |
| Citation | 295 F. 331 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO. v. BRAMWELL, Superintendent of Banks for State of Oregon. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
Dey Hampson & Nelson and Geo. L. Buland, all of Portland, Or for plaintiff.
John P Kavanaugh, of Portland, Or., and H. C. Merryman, of Klamath Falls, Or., for defendant.
The laws of the United States provide that, where any person indebted to the United States is insolvent, the debt due it shall be first satisfied (R.S. Sec. 3466 (Comp. St. Sec 6372)), and that, where the principal in any bond given the United States is insolvent, a surety who pays the money due on the bond shall have like priority as the United States (R.S. Sec. 3468 (Comp. St. Sec. 6374)). With this law in force, the United States, through the superintendent of the Klamath Indian reservation, caused to be deposited from time to time in the First State & Savings Bank of Klamath Falls moneys received by such officer from the sale of tribal land, pasturage and trespass on tribal lands, rent and trespass on allotted lands, sale of Indian allotments, and other miscellaneous moneys, and the bank, with plaintiff as surety, executed and delivered to the United States a bond in the penal sum of $100,000 as security for such deposits and interest thereon.
On January 28, 1922, there was so on deposit in the name of the superintendent the sum of about $95,000. On that day the bank was insolvent, and the state superintendent of banks took charge of its assets for the purpose of liquidation. Thereafter the plaintiff paid the United States the amount of such deposit and interest, amounting to $96,932.30, and duly presented for preference in the liquidation proceedings a claim for the amount so paid. The preference was denied, but the claim was allowed as a general claim. The plaintiff thereupon commenced this suit for a decree requiring the state superintendent of banks to pay its claim in full prior to the payment of unsecured and unpreferred creditors of the bank.
The position of the defendant is that the statute giving the United States priority was designed to protect the public revenues, so that the government could sustain its burdens and pay its obligations, and since the debt here in question was for money held by the United States for the use and benefit of the Indians residing on the Klamath Indian reservation the statute has no application. But it seems to me this is an unwarranted construction of the statute. The language is general and without qualification. It applies to all persons indebted to the United States. The form of the indebtedness is immaterial. Lewis v. U.S., 92 U.S. 618, 23 L.Ed. 513.
The debt here in question was due from the bank to the United States, both by the terms of the deposit and the condition of the bond given for its security. The United States was the only party to which the obligation ran, and which could enforce it. It is true the money was held in trust for the use...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cuesta, Rey & Co. v. Newsom
...... Rey & Co., being indebted to the United States government for. the payment of certain revenue ... of New Smyrna et al. (Fla.) 130 So. 453; U.S. Fidelity Co. v. Bramwell (D. C.) 295 F. 331;. Maryland Casualty Co. ...656,. 257 S.W. 410; U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Central. Trust Co., 95 W.Va. 458, 121 S.E. 430. ......
-
Shippee v. Commercial Trust Co.
...... funds of the United States in transit to the veteran until. the latter ...U.S. F. & G. Co. v. Bramwell (D. C.) 295 F. 331, affirmed 269. U.S. 483. 46 S.Ct. 176, ... accord with this view is United States Fidelity &. Guaranty Co. v. Bramwell (D. C.) 295 F. 331, affirmed ......
-
Shippee v. Commercial Trust Co.
...it was conceded to be in the hands of the guardian. In accord with this view is United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Bramwell (D. C.) 295 F. 331, affirmed in 269 U. S. 483, 46 S. Ct. 176, 70 L. Ed. 368. Decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States as to the meaning and intent of ......
-
U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Montgomery
...146 So. 528 226 Ala. 298 UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO. v. MONTGOMERY, Superintendent of Banks. 7 Div. 150.Supreme Court ... different statutes from those here obtaining. Bramwell v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 269 U.S. 483, 46. S.Ct. 176, 70 L.Ed. 368; Beaston v. ......