In re CA Taylor Logging & Lumber Co.
Decision Date | 09 October 1928 |
Docket Number | No. 4530.,4530. |
Citation | 28 F.2d 526 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
Parties | In re C. A. TAYLOR LOGGING & LUMBER CO. |
John H. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., M. H. Wight, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Chas. O. Flint, of Olympia, Wash., for petitioner.
Wayne W. Keyes, of Tacoma, Wash., for trustee.
This matter is before the court for review of an order denying priority to a claim of the state of Washington. While the amounts and nature of the claims, other than that of the state, do not appear, enough, however, is shown by the certificate and writings transmitted therewith for the purpose of review. The referee's decision was as follows:
Claimant cites: Section 3, c. 136, Laws of 1923 (Wash.); sections 64b(5) and 67d of the Bankruptcy Act (11 USCA §§ 104 b 5 107 d); chapter 74, Laws of 1911 (Wash.); State ex rel. Davis-Smith Co. v. Clausen, 65 Wash. 156, 117 P. 1101, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 466; In re Farrell (D. C.) 211 F. 212; chapter 188, Laws of 1915 (Wash.) p. 687; chapter 120, Laws of 1917 (Wash.) p. 487, § 5; Whitney v. Page & Bolster Co., 116 Wash. 371, 199 P. 728; Lung v. Pacific Co., 123 Wash. 628, 212 P. 1081; In re Ireland (D. C.) 4 F.(2d) 813; In re Pick Co. et al. (D. C.) 9 F.(2d) 207; Davis v. Pringle, 268 U. S. 315, 45 S. Ct. 549, 69 L. Ed. 974; 1926 amendment to Bankruptcy Act, effective August 27, 1926 (11 USCA); In re John G. Gasteiger & Co. (D. C.) 21 F.(2d) 977; In re Caplan (D. C.) 23 F.(2d) 680.
The trustee cites: Section 7682, Remington's Compiled Statutes of Washington; Whitney v. Page & Bolster Shingle Co., 116 Wash. 371, 199 P. 728; chapter 136, § 3, Laws of 1923 (Wash.); Thomas v. Woods (C. C. A. 8th Circuit) 173 F. 585, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1180, 19 Ann. Cas. 1080, 23 A. B. R. 132; section 64 of the Bankruptcy Act; Sweet v. Oregon-Washington Lumber & Mfg. Co., 98 Wash. 91, 167 P. 82; Lung v. Pacific Storage Warehouse Co., 123 Wash. 628, 212 P. 1081; section 47 National Bankruptcy Act; Matter of Eureka Paper Co., 44 A. B. R. 179; Collier on Bankruptcy (10th Ed.) 911; Brandenburg on Bankruptcy (2d Ed.) 623; Brown v. Hunt & Mottet Co., 111 Wash. 564, 191 P. 860; Withrow Lumber Co. v. Glasgow Inv. Co., 101 F. 863, 42 C. C. A. 61; and Withrow Lumber Co. v. Glasgow Inv. Co., 106 F. 363, 45 C. C. A. 321.
Certain portions of section 3, chapter 136 of the Laws of 1923, supra, are omitted by the referee in the above quotation, which omitted portions are relied upon by the claimant. That section of the Session Laws of 1923, pp. 398, 399 (1927 Supplement, Remington's Compiled Statutes of Washington, § 7682), provides in part:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Davis v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co.
...... and the States are equal. In re C. A. Taylor Logging &. Lumber Co., D.C., 28 F.2d 526, 529. [32 S.E.2d 182] . . It was. ......
-
Davis v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co, 14902.
...be to take from the jurisdiction of a sovereign sister State, and the States are equal. In re C. A. Taylor Logging & Lumber Co., D.C., 28 F.2d 526, 529.[32 S.E.2d 182] It was declared in Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 722, 24 L.Ed. 565, that "Every State possesses exclusive jurisdiction an......
-
State v. City of Hudson
...A.L.R. 478, and that, conversely, such jurisdiction does not extend beyond its boundaries. In re C. A. Taylor Logging & Lumber Co., D.C., 28 F.2d 526; 59 C.J., States, s 3. It makes no difference in this connection that the state, as here, has concurrent jurisdiction with other states over ......
-
State v. City of Hudson, 35104
...468, 246 N.W. 1, 87 A.L.R. 478, and that, conversely, such jurisdiction does not extend beyond its boundaries. In re C. A. Taylor Logging & Lumber Co., D.C., 28 F.2d 526; 59 C.J., States, § 3. It makes no difference in this connection that the state, as here, has concurrent jurisdiction wit......