Greeley v. Provident Sav. Bank

• Decision Date: 24 June 1889
• Citation: 11 S.W. 980,98 Mo. 458
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Parties: GREELEY v. PROVIDENT SAV. BANK <I>et al.,</I> (SEXTON, Collector, Intervenor.)

11 S.W. 980

98 Mo. 458

GREELEY v. PROVIDENT SAV. BANK et al., (SEXTON, Collector, Intervenor.)

Supreme Court of Missouri.

June 24, 1889.

RECEIVERS — TAXES.

The assets of a savings bank being in the hands of a receiver, the court ordered all claims against it to be filed by a certain date, or be barred. After that time the collector of taxes intervened, and asked the court for an order for the receiver to pay the same. Held, that the state having, under Sess. Acts Mo. 1881, p. 180, § 7, a paramount right to be paid out of those assets, it was error for the court not to issue the order as requested.

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; GEORGE W. LUBKE, Judge.

Leverett Bell, for appellant. Boyle, Adams & McKeighan, for receiver.

BRACE, J.

In an action in the St. Louis circuit court, wherein Carlos S. Greeley is plaintiff and the Provident Savings Bank et al. are defendants, respondent W. H. Thompson was appointed receiver of the assets and property of said bank. On the 5th of January, 1887, the appellant, collector of taxes, intervened in said cause by petition setting forth that he held a tax-bill for the year 1886 against the personal property of the Provident Savings Bank, amounting, in the aggregate, to the sum of $2,918.22, and praying the court to make an order requiring the receiver to pay the same. On the 7th of October, 1886, the court had made an order requiring all persons having demands against the assets in the hands of the receiver to intervene on or before the first day of the December term, 1886; otherwise their claims would be forever barred. The court refused to make the order for the payment of the taxes on the ground that the collector failed to intervene with his demand within the time prescribed by said order of October 7th. The amount of the taxes was undisputed, and the receiver had in his hands funds sufficient to pay them, and we think the order should have been made. It may be conceded that the state did not have an express lien upon the assets that went into the hands of the receiver, but it had a right, paramount to other creditors, to be paid out of those assets, (Sess. Acts 1881, p. 180, § 7; Id. p. 35; State v. Rowse, 49 Mo. 586;) a right which it could have enforced through its revenue officers by the summary process of distress, (Rev. St. 1879, § 6754,) but for the fact that the property and assets of its debtor had passed into the custody of its courts, whose duty it was, in the administration and distribution...