In re Farrell
Decision Date | 23 January 1914 |
Docket Number | 5134. |
Citation | 211 F. 212 |
Parties | In re FARRELL et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
W. V Tanner, Atty. Gen., and John M. Wilson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for claimant.
Alderson & Murphine, of Seattle, Wash., for trustee.
The Industrial Insurance Department of the state of Washington filed with the referee in bankruptcy its verified claim in the amount of $365.78, which represents assessments made by the Industrial Insurance Department against the said bankrupts based upon their pay roll of workmen in extrahazardous employment in and about their business in the operation of a sawmill. This claim was filed by virtue of chapter 74 of the Laws of Washington 1911, p. 346. The state claims priority of payment of said amount under section 64a of the Bankruptcy Act (Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, 30 Stat. 563 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3447)). The trustee 'objects to the claim of the state of Washington for premium due the State Industrial Insurance Commission as a claim having a priority, for the reason that said claim does not constitute a claim having a priority within the meaning of the bankrupt statute.'
Section 64a of the Bankruptcy Act provides:
'The court shall order the trustee to pay all taxes legally due and owing by the bankrupt to the United States, state county, district, or municipality in advance of the payment of dividends to creditors.'
The Workmen's Compensation Act, approved by the Governor March 14, 1911 (Laws of 1911, p. 345), requires all employers engaged in extrahazardous employments to pay certain amounts into a fund for the purpose of compensating injured workmen. Section 4 of this act, at page 352, provides:
'The fund thereby created shall be termed the 'accident fund' which shall be devoted exclusively to the purpose specified * * * in this act.'
Section 8 of the act, page 362, provides:
'If any employer shall default in any payment to the accident fund, * * * the sum due shall be collected by action at law in the name of the state as plaintiff, and such right of action shall be in addition to any other right of action or remedy.'
It is further provided that if injury occurs after demand for payment on default, the employer loses the benefit of the act. Section 21 provides:
'The administration of this act is imposed upon a department, to be known as the Industrial Insurance Department, to consist of three commissioners to be appointed by the Governor.'
No method of collecting the assessments provided by the act is provided other than as set forth in section 8.
Article 7 of the Constitution of Washington, Sec. 1, provides:
A 'tax' is defined as a pecuniary burden imposed for the support of the government. United States v. Railroad, 17 Wall. 322, 326, 21 L.Ed. 597. It is the enforced proportionate contribution of persons and property levied for the support of government and for all public things. Opinion of Justices, 58 Me. 591; Cooley on Taxation, 1; Pacific Insurance Co. v. Soule, 7 Wall. 433, 19 L.Ed. 95; Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586, 26 L.Ed. 253.
'A 'tax' is a pecuniary burden laid upon individuals and property for the purpose of supporting the government. ' New Jersey v. Anderson, 203 U.S. 483, 27 Sup.Ct. 137, 51 L.Ed. 284.
The assessment in issue is not to relieve the general taxpayer, but rather to relieve the employer from liability for injuries sustained by employes in extrahazardous employments and to compensate such employes. It is an assessment against a class for the benefit of a class.
The Supreme Court of Washington, in State ex rel. Davis-Smith Co. v. Clausen, 65 Wash. 156, at page 203, 117 P. 1101, at page 1116 () , in passing upon the constitutionality of the Industrial Insurance Act, and considering it with relation to article 7 of the state Constitution, says:
Federal courts are always disposed to accept the construction which the state court has placed upon a state statute. Phoenix Railway Co. v. Landis, 231 U.S. 578, 34 Sup.Ct. 179, 58 L.Ed. . . .; Sweeney v. Lommey, 22 Wall. 208, 213 22 L.Ed. 727; Fox v. Haarstick, 158 U.S. 674, 679, 15 Sup.Ct. 457, 39 L.Ed. 576; Northern Pacific R.R. Co. v. Hambly, 154 U.S. 474, 479, 14 Sup.Ct. 983, 38 L.Ed. 1009; Copper Queen Mining Co. v. Arizona Board, 206 U.S. 474, 479, 27 Sup.Ct. 695, 51 L.Ed. 1143;...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re CA Taylor Logging & Lumber Co.
...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.......
-
Mississippi Valley Trust Co. v. Oregon-Washington Timber Co.
...such as this is not for a general tax for public purposes, entitling it to be preferred in payment under the Bankruptcy Act. In re Farrell (D.C.) 211 F. 212. state contends that, even if its claim be considered not as a tax, but as a debt, it is one to a sovereign state, that at common law ......
-
Pan American Paper Mills, Inc., In re, 79-1583
...at best offer dicta rather than holdings as to what is the meaning of the present version of § 26.3 Two early cases, Matter of Farrell, 211 F. 212 (W.D.Wash.1914) and Re Eureka Paper Co., 44 Am.Bank Rep. (F) 179 (D.C.Ref.1919) held that a payment by an employer to a workmen's compensation a......
-
In re Siegelbaum's Incorporated
...compulsory insurance premiums, analogous to workmen's compensation assessments, which have been denied priority as taxes. In re Farrell, D.C.W.D.Wash., 211 F. 212. Compare the conflicting views on municipal water rents as taxes. In re Hills, 2 Cir., 221 F. 260; McDowell v. City of Barberton......