371 U.S. 132 (1962), 78, Pealman v. Reliance Insurance Co.

Docket NºNo. 78
Citation371 U.S. 132, 83 S.Ct. 232, 9 L.Ed.2d 190
Party NamePealman v. Reliance Insurance Co.
Case DateDecember 03, 1962
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Page 132

371 U.S. 132 (1962)

83 S.Ct. 232, 9 L.Ed.2d 190

Pealman

v.

Reliance Insurance Co.

No. 78

United States Supreme Court

Dec. 3, 1962

Argued October 9-10, 1962

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Syllabus

When, by reason of the contractor's default, a surety on a payment bond given by a contractor under the Miller Act, 49 Stat. 793, has been compelled to pay debts of the contractor for labor and materials, the surety is entitled by subrogation to reimbursement from a fund otherwise due to the contractor but withheld by the Government pursuant to the terms of the contract -- even though the contractor has become bankrupt and the Government has turned the withheld fund over to the contractor's trustee in bankruptcy. Pp. 133-142.

(a) This fund never became a part of the bankruptcy estate, and its disposition is not controlled by the Bankruptcy Act. Pp. 135-136.

(b) Prairie State Bank v. United States, 164 U.S. 227, and Henningsen v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 208 U.S. 404, followed. Pp. 137-139.

(c) The Miller Act, which requires separate performance and payment bonds on Government contracts, did not change the law as declared in the Prairie State Bank and Henningsen cases. Pp. 139-140.

(d) The Prairie State Bank and Henningsen cases were not overruled by United States v. Munsey Trust Co., 332 U.S. 234. Pp. 140-142.

298 F.2d 655 affirmed.

Page 133

BLACK, J., lead opinion

MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a dispute between the trustee in bankruptcy of a government contractor and the contractor's payment bond surety over which has the superior right and title to a fund withheld by the Government out of earnings due the contractor.

The petitioner, Pearlman is trustee of the bankrupt estate of the Dutcher Construction Corporation, which, in April, 1955, entered into a contract with the United States to do work on the Government's St. Lawrence Seaway project. At the same time, the respondent, Reliance Insurance Company,1 executed two surety bonds required of the contractor by the Miller Act, one to guarantee performance of the contract, the other to guarantee payment to all persons supplying labor and material for the project.2 Under the terms of the contract, which was attached to and made a part of the payment bond, the United States

Page 134

was authorized to retain and hold a percentage of estimated amounts due monthly until final completion and acceptance of all work covered by the contract. Before completion, Dutcher had financial trouble, and the United States terminated its contract by agreement. Another contractor completed the job, which was finally accepted by the Government. At this time, there was left in the Government's withheld fund $87,737.35, which would have been due to be paid to Dutcher had it carried out its obligation to pay its laborers and materialmen. Since it had not met this obligation, its surety had been compelled to pay about $350,000 to discharge debts of the contractor for labor and materials. In this situation, the Government was holding over $87,000 which plainly belonged to someone else, and the fund was turned over to the bankrupt's trustee, who held it on the assumption that it had been property of the bankrupt at the time of adjudication, and therefore had vested in the trustee "by operation of law" under § 70 of the Bankruptcy Act.3 The surety then filed a petition in the District Court denying that the fund had vested in the trustee, alleging that it, the surety, [83 S.Ct. 234] was "the owner of said sum" of $87,737.35 "free and clear of the claims of the Trustee in Bankruptcy or any other person, firm or corporation," and seeking an order directing the trustee to pay over the fund to the surety forthwith.4 The referee in bankruptcy, relying chiefly on this Court's opinion in United States v. Munsey Trust Co., 332 U.S. 234 (1947), held that the surety had no superior rights in the fund, refused to direct payment to the surety, and

Page 135

accordingly ordered the surety's claim to be allowed as that of a general creditor only to share on an equality with the general run of unsecured creditors.5 The District Court vacated the referee's order and held that cases decided prior to Munsey had established the right of a surety under circumstances like this to be accorded priority over general creditors, and that Munsey had not changed that rule.6 The Second Circuit affirmed.7 Other federal courts have reached a contrary result,8 and, as the question is an important and recurring one, we granted certiorari to decide it.9

One argument against the surety's claim is that this controversy is governed entirely by the Bankruptcy Act, and that § 64, 11 U.S.C. § 104, which prescribes priorities for different classes of creditors, gives no priority to a surety's claim for reimbursement. But the present dispute -- who has the property interests in the fund, and how much -- is not so simply solved. Ownership of property rights before bankruptcy is one thing; priority of distribution in bankruptcy of property that has passed unencumbered into a bankrupt's estate is quite another. Property interests in a fund not owned by a bankrupt at the time of adjudication, whether complete or partial, legal or equitable, mortgages, liens, or simple priority of rights, are, of course, not a part of the bankrupt's property, and do not vest in the trustee. The Bankruptcy Act simply does not authorize a trustee to distribute other

Page 136

people's property among a bankrupt's creditors.10 So here, if the surety at the time of adjudication was, as it claimed, either the outright legal or equitable owner of this fund, or had an equitable lien or prior right to it, this property interest of the surety never became a part of the bankruptcy estate to be administered, liquidated, and distributed to general creditors of the bankrupt. This Court has recently reaffirmed that such property rights existing before bankruptcy in persons other than the bankrupt must be recognized and respected in bankruptcy.11 Consequently, our question is not who was entitled [83 S.Ct. 235] to priority in distributions under § 64, but whether the surety had, as it claimed, ownership of, an equitable lien on, or a prior right to this fund before bankruptcy adjudication.

Since there is no statute which expressly declares that a surety does acquire a property interest in a fund like this under the circumstances here, we must seek an answer in prior judicial decisions. Some of the relevant factors in determining the question are beyond dispute. Traditionally, sureties compelled to pay debts for their principal have been deemed entitled to reimbursement, even without a contractual promise such as the surety here had.12 And probably there are few doctrines better established

Page 137

than that a surety who pays the debt of another is entitled to all the rights of the person he paid to enforce his right to be reimbursed.13 This rule, widely applied in this country14 and generally known as the right of subrogation, was relied on by the Court of Appeals in this case. It seems rather plain that at least two prior decisions of this Court have held that there is a security interest in a withheld fund like this to which the surety is subrogated, unless, as is argued, the rule laid down in those cases has been changed by passage of the Miller Act or by our holding in the Munsey case. Those two cases are Prairie State Bank v. United States, 164 U.S. 227 (1896), and Henningsen v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 208 U.S. 404 (1908).

In the Prairie Bank case, a surety who had been compelled to complete a government contract upon the contractor's default in performance claimed that he was entitled to be reimbursed for his expenditure out of a fund that arose from the Government's retention of 10% of the estimated value of the work done under the terms of the contract between the original contractor and the Government. That contract contained almost the same provisions for retention of the fund as the contract presently before us. The Prairie Bank, contesting the surety's claim, asserted that it had a superior equitable lien arising from moneys advanced by the bank to the contractor before the surety began to complete the work. The Court, in a well reasoned opinion by Mr. Justice White, held that this fund materially tended to protect the surety,

Page 138

that its creation raised an equity in the surety's favor, that the United States was entitled to protect itself out of the fund, and that the surety, by asserting the right of subrogation, could protect itself by resort to the same securities and same remedies which had been available to the United States for its protection against the contractor. The Court then went on to quote with obvious approval this statement from a state case:

The law upon this subject seems to be, the reserved per cent. to be withheld until the completion of the work to be done is as much for the indemnity of him who may be a guarantor of the performance of the contract as for him for whom it is to be performed. And there is great justness in the rule adopted. Equitably, therefore, the sureties in such cases are entitled to have the sum [83 S.Ct. 236] agreed upon held as a fund out of which they may be indemnified, and, if the principal releases it without their consent, it discharges them from their undertaking.

164 U.S. at 239, quoting from Finney v. Condon, 86 Ill. 78, 81 (1877).

The Prairie Bank case thus followed an already established doctrine that a surety who completes a contract has an "equitable right" to indemnification out of a retained fund such as the one claimed by the surety in the present case. The only difference in the two cases is that here, the surety incurred his losses by paying debts for the contractor, rather than by finishing the contract.

The Henningsen...

To continue reading

Request your trial
450 practice notes
  • 115 B.R. 540 (Bkrtcy.W.D.Mich. 1990), 86-375, In re Zwagerman
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Bankruptcy Courts Sixth Circuit
    • 19 Junio 1990
    ...has not been changed by the current Bankruptcy Act, and the courts have continued to apply it. See Pearlman v. Reliance Insurance Co., 371 U.S. 132, 83 S.Ct. 232, 9 L.Ed.2d 190 (1962); First National Bank v. Staake, 202 U.S. 141, 26 S.Ct. 580, 50 L.Ed. 967 Id. at 645. According to the proof......
  • 140 B.R. 608 (Bkrtcy.D.Mass. 1992), 91-1425, In re Bay State York Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Bankruptcy Courts First Circuit
    • 29 Mayo 1992
    ...that related back to the date of the surety bond and never became a part of the bankruptcy estate. See Pearlman v. Reliance Ins. Co., 371 U.S. 132, 83 S.Ct. 232, 9 L.Ed.2d 190 (1962). However, the court went on to state that the surety could not by way of subrogation assert any greater righ......
  • 184 B.R. 436 (Bkrtcy.S.D.N.Y. 1995), 93-B-20725, In re ADL Contracting Corp.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Bankruptcy Courts Second Circuit
    • 27 Julio 1995
    ...at a certain price irrespective of whether the contractor is able to complete the project. See Pearlman v. Reliance Insurance Company, 371 U.S. 132, 140, 83 S.Ct. 232, 236, 9 L.Ed.2d 190 (1962); Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. United States, 382 F.2d 317, 320 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 390 U.S......
  • 204 B.R. 440 (Bkrtcy.D.N.J. 1997), 94-20369, In re Alcon Demolition, Inc.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Bankruptcy Courts Third Circuit
    • 17 Enero 1997
    ...of another is entitled to all the rights of the person he paid to enforce his right to be reimbursed." Pearlman v. Reliance Ins. Co., 371 U.S. 132, 136-37, 83 S.Ct. 232, 235, 9 L.Ed.2d 190 (1962). Where a surety performs or pays subcontractors to perform pursuant to a performance and p......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
433 cases
  • 115 B.R. 540 (Bkrtcy.W.D.Mich. 1990), 86-375, In re Zwagerman
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Bankruptcy Courts Sixth Circuit
    • 19 Junio 1990
    ...has not been changed by the current Bankruptcy Act, and the courts have continued to apply it. See Pearlman v. Reliance Insurance Co., 371 U.S. 132, 83 S.Ct. 232, 9 L.Ed.2d 190 (1962); First National Bank v. Staake, 202 U.S. 141, 26 S.Ct. 580, 50 L.Ed. 967 Id. at 645. According to the proof......
  • 140 B.R. 608 (Bkrtcy.D.Mass. 1992), 91-1425, In re Bay State York Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Bankruptcy Courts First Circuit
    • 29 Mayo 1992
    ...that related back to the date of the surety bond and never became a part of the bankruptcy estate. See Pearlman v. Reliance Ins. Co., 371 U.S. 132, 83 S.Ct. 232, 9 L.Ed.2d 190 (1962). However, the court went on to state that the surety could not by way of subrogation assert any greater righ......
  • 184 B.R. 436 (Bkrtcy.S.D.N.Y. 1995), 93-B-20725, In re ADL Contracting Corp.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Bankruptcy Courts Second Circuit
    • 27 Julio 1995
    ...at a certain price irrespective of whether the contractor is able to complete the project. See Pearlman v. Reliance Insurance Company, 371 U.S. 132, 140, 83 S.Ct. 232, 236, 9 L.Ed.2d 190 (1962); Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. United States, 382 F.2d 317, 320 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 390 U.S......
  • 204 B.R. 440 (Bkrtcy.D.N.J. 1997), 94-20369, In re Alcon Demolition, Inc.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Bankruptcy Courts Third Circuit
    • 17 Enero 1997
    ...of another is entitled to all the rights of the person he paid to enforce his right to be reimbursed." Pearlman v. Reliance Ins. Co., 371 U.S. 132, 136-37, 83 S.Ct. 232, 235, 9 L.Ed.2d 190 (1962). Where a surety performs or pays subcontractors to perform pursuant to a performance and p......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 firm's commentaries
  • Municipal Debtors: 'Cram Down' Of Special Revenue Debt
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 20 Mayo 2014
    ...excluded property of others held by the debtor in trust at the time of the filing of the petition."); Pearlman v. Reliance Ins. Co., 371 U.S. 132, 135-36 (1962) ("[Bankruptcy law] simply does not authorize a trustee to distribute other people's property among a bankrupt's creditor......
  • Point of Interest: Sixth Circuit Complicates Sureties’ Duty Of “Good Faith”
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • 14 Noviembre 2016
    ...Thus, despite “the usual view, grounded in commercial practice, that suretyship is not insurance,” Pearlman v. Reliance Ins. Co., 371 U.S. 132 (1962), many courts have held that a surety owes a duty of good faith to an obligee. E.g., Transamerica Premier Ins. Co. v. Brighton School Dist. 27......
  • Point Of Interest: Sixth Circuit Complicates Sureties' Duty Of 'Good Faith'
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 17 Noviembre 2016
    ...despite "the usual view, grounded in commercial practice, that suretyship is not insurance," Pearlman v. Reliance Ins. Co., 371 U.S. 132 (1962), many courts have held that a surety owes a duty of good faith to an obligee. E.g., Transamerica Premier Ins. Co. v. Brighton School Dist......
  • The Continuing Battle of Subcontractors and Lenders
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • 9 Julio 2012
    ...either of those situations, the subcontractor may prevail. Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1962 decision in Pearlman v. Reliance Ins. Co., 371 U.S. 132 (1962), federal courts and several state courts have recognized unpaid subcontractors have a “super-priority” to unpaid funds against a comp......
13 books & journal articles
  • Payment
    • United States
    • Construction Law, Second Edition
    • 1 Enero 2019
    ...United States, 164 U.S. 227, 17 S. Ct. 142, 41 L. Ed. 412 (1896); see generally BRUNER & O’CONNOR, JR., supra note 7, at § 8:36. 38. 371 U.S. 132, 83 S. Ct. 232, 9 L. Ed. 2d 190 pat54645_02_b02_283–496.indd 370 6/28/19 2:01 PM Payment 371 tractors, and the owner.39In so holding, the cou......
  • The insurance policy as social instrument and social institution.
    • United States
    • William and Mary Law Review Vol. 51 Nbr. 4, March 2010
    • 1 Marzo 2010
    ...$300,000 in frees."). (20.) Historically, suretyship has been distinguished from insurance. See, e.g., Pearlman v. Reliance Ins. Co., 371 U.S. 132, 140 n.19 (1962) ("[T]he usual view, grounded in commercial practice, [is] that suretyship is not insurance."); United States v. ......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • Construction Law, Second Edition
    • 1 Enero 2019
    ...47 Fed. Cl. 745 (2000), 49 n.47, 50 n.49 pat54645_04_bm_845-904.indd 870 7/10/19 9:32 AM Table of Cases 871 Pearlman v. Reliance Ins. Co., 371 U.S. 132, 83 S. Ct. 232, 9 L. Ed. 2d 190 (1962), 370–371, 580–583, 586 Peck v. Horrocks Eng’rs, Inc., 106 F.3d 949 (10th Cir. 1997), 414–416 Peerles......
  • Conning the IADC Newsletters.
    • United States
    • Defense Counsel Journal Vol. 67 Nbr. 4, October 2000
    • 1 Octubre 2000
    ...Association article, "Surety Bonds on Public and Private Construction Projects," cited in Pearlman v. Reliance Insurance Co., 371 U.S. 132 (1962), to reach the conclusion that suretyship is not insurance. The court articulated the differences between suretyship and insurance thus:......
  • Request a trial to view additional results