In re Crow
| Decision Date | 22 March 1902 |
| Parties | In re CROW. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky |
The following is the opinion of Referee Dean:
On the 8th day of August, 1901, the bankrupt made a deed of assignment of all his property for the benefit of his creditors. On the 5th day of August, 1901, three days before the deed of assignment, he made a settlement with the Ohio county court of his accounts as guardian of May Crow, an infant; and this settlement shows him indebted to his said ward, on account of her estate coming to his hands as guardian, in the sum of $1,321.42. On the 25th day of September, 1901, certain of the creditors of the bankrupt filed their petition in this court seeking to have him adjudged a bankrupt, and he was so adjudged on the 4th day of November, 1901, and the matter referred to the undersigned referee. On the 2d day of December, 1901, one A. G. Holbrook filed a claim against the estate of the bankrupt for the said sum found due on said settlement from the bankrupt as guardian to the said May Crow; the said Holbrook setting out in the proof of said claim that he had been appointed guardian of the said infant in lieu of the said bankrupt. With said claim is filed a certified copy of the said settlement with the Ohio county court. It sufficiently appears from the proof of the said claim that the bankrupt is indebted to his said former ward as her guardian, in the said sum, and that no part of same has been paid. Without expressly claiming priority of payment in said claim, the said present guardian is asking this court to order his said claim paid, as a prior claim, under provisions of the statutes of Kentucky making siad claims prior in the distribution of insolvent estates. To this the trustee, as well as other creditors, object, and have filed exceptions to the allowance of the said claim as a prior claim, and the matter has been submitted to the referee to pass upon that question, after argument of counsel representing both sides.
If said claim is entitled, to priority, it is by virtue of clause 5 par. 'b,' Sec. 64, of the bankruptcy law, which provides that debts shall have priority which are owing to any person who by the laws of the states or the United States is entitled to priority. By the statute laws of the state of Kentucky, in all cases of distribution of insolvent estates debts due by the insolvent as guardian are given priority over claims of general creditors. There are only three states of case in which it can be conceived that the law could direct the distribution of insolvent estates, and these are in cases of voluntary assignment for benefit of creditors involuntary assignment for benefit of creditors, and death and in all these states of case the laws of the state direct the payment of such claims as this as prior claims. In the case of voluntary assignments the provision is as follows ' * * * Debts due by the assignor as guardian, committee, trustee of an express trust created by deed or will, or as personal representative, shall be paid in full before the general creditors receive anything. ' Ky. St. Sec. 74. In case of involuntary assignments the provision is as follows: 'In the distribution of the assets of any debtor, after the payment of the costs and expenses of the suit, the debts due as guardian, personal representative and as trustee, if the trust be created by deed or will duly recorded in the proper clerk's office, shall have priority over debts due general creditors. * * * ' Id. Sec. 1916. In the case of the distribution of insolvent estates of deceased persons the provision is as follows: 'If the personal estate of a deceased person be not sufficient to pay his liabilities, then the burial expenses of such decedent, and the costs and charges of the administration of his estate, and the amount...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Bennett
...laws of Massachusetts. It was held that this priority was preserved by section 64b(5) of the bankrupt act. In the case styled In re Crow (D.C.) 116 F. 110, 112, question arose as to whether a debt due by a bankrupt guardian to his ward was entitled to priority by reason of a Kentucky statut......
-
In re Jones
...County, 102 F. 808, 42 C.C.A. 637, affirming In re Wright, supra; In re Daniels (D.C.) 110 F. 745; In re Lewis (D.C.) 99 F. 935; In re Crow (D.C.) 116 F. 110. In Wright and in Re Worcester County, supra, the question arose over a claim owing by the bankrupt to the county of Worcester. The g......
-
Wheeler v. Johnson
...although no lien was established by the statute. See, also, to the same effect, In re Worcester County (C. C. A.) 102 F. 808; In re Crow (D. C.) 116 F. 110; In re Stoever (D. C.) 127 F. 394; In re Bennett (C. C. A.) 153 F. 673; In re Western Condensed Milk Co. (C. C. A.) 261 F. 62; In re E.......
-
In re CD Hauger Co.
...v. Graham (C. C. A.) 287 F. 686; Courtney v. Fidelity Trust (C. C. A.) 219 F. 57; In re Iroquois Machine Co. (D. C.) 166 F. 629; In re Crow (D. C.) 116 F. 110; Lumber Co. v. Globe-Wernicke Co., 4 Tenn. App. 522; Coke & Coal Company v. Steel Co., 123 Tenn. 428, 131 S. W. 988, 31 L. R. A. (N.......