In re E.J. Hibner Oil Co.
Decision Date | 20 January 1920 |
Docket Number | 2740.,2731 |
Citation | 264 F. 667 |
Parties | In re E. J. HIBNER OIL CO. v. HINES, Director General of Railroads. CENTRAL TRUST CO. OF ILLINOIS |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Rehearing denied May 4, 1920.
Edward R. Tiedebohl, of Chicago, Ill., for petitioner and appellant.
F. W Flott, of Chicago, Ill., for respondent and appellee.
Before BAKER, ALSCHULER, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.
The claim is by the United States for unpaid freight charges due from bankrupt on oil shipments made in August, 1918, over the New York Central Railroad, which was then being operated under federal control. The only question before us is as to the propriety of the order of the District Court according the claim priority in payment over bankrupt's general creditors.
If the claim is property of, and constitutes a debt due to, the United States, then concededly its priority was properly found. Rev. Stat. U.S. Sec. 3466 (Comp. St. Sec. 6372); U.S Bankruptcy Act, Sec. 64b (Comp. St. Sec. 9648). Section 12 c. 25, of the Act of Congress of March 21, 1918 (40 Stat. 451 (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, Sec. 3115 3/4l)), known as the 'Federal Control Act,' provides:
The 'revolving fund' referred to is the $500,000,000 appropriated by the same act (section 6, c. 25 (section 3115 3/4f)) for paying just compensation to railroad companies, and for maintenance and betterments as therein specified.
It is contended for the trustee that under correct interpretation of the act--
'uncollected transportation charges constitute a debt between the carrier and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Kaplan
...owing to any person who by the laws of the States or the United States is entitled to priority." See, also, In re E. J. Hibner Oil Co., 264 F. 667, 14 A. L. R. 629 (C. C. A. 7); In re Anderson, 279 F. 525, 527 (C. C. A. 2); In re Stoever, 127 F. 394 (D. C. E. D. Pa.). But the Supreme Court ......
-
Davis v. Michigan Trust Co.
...usual rules of substantive civil law be given full effect. While our conclusion differs from that expressed in In re Hibner Oil Co., 264 F. 667, 14 A. L. R. 629 (C. C. A. 7), and In re Tidewater Coal Exchange, 280 F. 648 (C. C. A. 2), as well as in Davis v. Pullen and Davis v. Miller-Link L......
-
Davis v. Pullen, 1527.
... ... In that ... respect we accord with the view of the Circuit Court of ... Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in In re Hibner Oil ... Co., 264 F. 667, 14 A.L.R. 629. See also Northern ... Pacific R.R. v. North Dakota, 250 U.S. 135, 39 Sup.Ct ... 502, 63 L.Ed. 897, where ... ...
-
Wheeler v. Johnson
...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. J. Hibner Oil Co. (C. C. A.) 264 F. 667; In re Morris Bros. (C. C. A.) 293 F. 294; In re Ireland (D. C.) 4 F.(2d) 813. Fixed liens were not involved, but simply p......