Standard Oil Co. v. Miller
Decision Date | 31 January 1925 |
Docket Number | No. 2253 and 2287,2255 and 2288,2256 and 2289.,2253 and 2287 |
Citation | 3 F.2d 438 |
Parties | STANDARD OIL CO. v. MILLER et al. UNITED STATES v. SAME. COMMERCIAL CREDIT CO. v. SAME. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
F. R. Conway, Admiralty Atty. U. S. Shipping Board, of Washington, D. C. (A. W. W. Woodcock, U. S. Atty., of Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for the United States.
Malcolm H. Lauchheimer and John H. Skeen, both of Baltimore, Md. (Sylvan Hayes Lauchheimer, of Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for Commercial Credit Co.
Hugh H. Obear, of Washington, D. C. (Douglas, Obear & Douglas, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for International Finance Corporation.
George De Forest Lord, of New York City (Lord, Day & Lord, of New York City, on the brief), for John J. Orr & Son.
George W. P. Whip, of Baltimore, Md. (Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, of San Francisco, Cal., and Lord & Whip, of Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for Standard Oil Co.
Before WOODS and WADDILL, Circuit Judges, and COCHRAN, District Judge.
These appeals and petitions to superintend and revise raise difficult questions, some of them not well covered by authority. Strong argument has been adduced against some of the conclusions of the District Court (287 F. 714; 289 F. 145), but after much consideration we are convinced they are sound in reason and sustained by authority.
The view expressed in the opinion of the District Court in 289 F. 145, that an ordinary debt of the United States is entitled to preference in the distribution of the assets of a bankrupt, has been held by this court to be incorrect in Davis, Federal Agent, v. Pringle, Trustee, 1 F.(2d) 860, decided September 29, 1924, but that error does not affect the correctness of the conclusions of the court, as there was no debt due the United States.
It is suggested in the argument on behalf of the Standard Oil Company that the formal decree adjudicating its rights by inadvertence does not accord with the opinions of the District Court above referred to, and that articles 1, 9, 11, and 12 of the decree are inconsistent. The alleged mistake was not referred to in the arguments of other claimants. If there was an inadvertence in drawing the decree, it may be corrected by agreement before the entry of the formal decree of this court. If no agreement can be reached, the court will consider the matter on motion, after due notice to the parties interested. With this...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schirmer Stevedoring Co., Ltd. v. Seaboard Stevedoring Corp.
...S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp., 9 Cir., 1928, 27 F.2d 39; In re Atlantic Gulf & P. S.S. Co., D. Maryland, 1923, 289 F. 145, aff'd 3 F.2d 438. But these cases involved assignment of freights that actually became due before On the theory that the right to freights is "incident to own......
-
Ocean Cargo Lines, Ltd. v. North Atlantic Marine Co.
...operated by the steamship company, In re Atlantic, Gulf & Pac. S.S. Co., 3 F. 2d 311 (D.Md.1923), aff'd sub nom. Standard Oil Co. v. Miller, 3 F.2d 438 (4 Cir. 1925), although it was held to have no lien against the vessel itself which was being operated at the time under a conditional cont......
-
Matter of Topgallant Lines, Inc.
...Cir. 1962). See also, In re Surico, 42 F.2d 935 (D.Wash.1930); Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific S.S. Co., 3 F.2d 311 (D.Md.1923), aff'd 3 F.2d 438 (4th Cir.1925). Similarly, the UCC as adopted in Georgia and indeed in 49 of 50 states applies "to any transaction which is intended to create a secur......
-
In re Levy-Mellon Marine
...U.S. v. Sterling, 22 F.2d 323 (S.D.N.Y.1927). See also In re Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Steamship Co., 289 F. 145 (D.Md.1923), aff'd 3 F.2d 438 (4th Cir.1925). MARAD asserts that these cases are not apropos to this inquiry because there was no assignment of freights to a third party. That cont......