In re Rogers
Decision Date | 13 December 1951 |
Docket Number | 212-BH.,No. 50,50 |
Parties | In re ROGERS. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
Burton A. Van Tassel, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner.
Sidney Traxler, Los Angeles, Cal., for Bankrupt, Petitioner on Review.
Russell B. Seymour, Los Angeles, Cal., for William A. Wylie, Trustee, Respondent on Review.
Petition for review of determination of the Referee has been presented by claimant Aetna Casualty & Surety Company. The sole question presented is whether a claim for a payment, made prior to bankruptcy, by a surety on a bond given by the bankrupt to secure the payment of taxes is entitled to priority under Section 64, sub. a (4) of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 104, sub. a(4). The facts in this case are not in dispute.
The equitable doctrine of subrogation is not new. Even without its general acceptance by the courts as a remedy for a surety who has discharged the indebtedness of the principal debtor, Section 57, sub. i of the Bankruptcy Act provides for the subrogation of a surety to "the rights" of the creditor who fails to file a claim. 11 U.S. C.A. § 93, sub. i.
Of course, subrogation will be denied to the mere volunteer, In re Green River Jockey Club, D.C., 5 F.2d 259; In the Matter of Inland Gas Corp., 6 Cir., 91 F.2d 113, and it will be denied to one who engineers a tax sale to buy the bankrupt's worthless equity for the sole purpose of claiming the government's priority distribution. In the Matter of Gracey, D.C., 241 F. 981. On the other hand, there is a respectable split of authority on the question of whether a purchaser at a tax sale may be subrogated to the priority of the taxing unit. Holding that such purchaser may not be so subrogated are: In re Hollenfeltz, D.C., 94 F. 629; In re Veitch, D.C., 101 F. 251; In re Minogue, D.C., 39 F.2d 239; In re Brinker, D.C., 128 F. 634; and in the Matter of Hibbler Machine Supply Co., D.C., 192 F. 741. Contra are the more recent cases of In the Matter of Clark Realty Co., 7 Cir., 253 F. 938, and in the Matter of Ingersoll, 10 Cir., 148 F.2d 282.
Subrogation to the priority of Section 64, sub. a(4) has been allowed in the case of purchasers who bought at a sale of real property belonging to a bankrupt estate, later declared invalid, and who paid the taxes due on such realty at the time of that sale, Dayton v. Stanard, 241 U.S. 588, 36 S.Ct. 695, 60 L.Ed. 1190, and in the case of unsecured creditors of a bankrupt who advanced sufficient amounts to the United States to compromise a claim against the bankrupt for taxes due. In re Baltimore Pearl Hominy Co., 4 Cir., 5 F.2d 553. The presence of a lien is unnecessary. New Jersey v. Anderson, 203 U.S. 483, 27 S.Ct. 137, 51 L.Ed. 284.
As far as I can ascertain, our Circuit Court has not passed upon the issue herein involved. In Collier's on Bankruptcy (14th Ed.), Vol. 3, page 2167, the following language is used:
The Trustee relies upon the case of In re Green River Jockey Club, 5 F.2d 259, 261, decided by the District Court, Western District of Kentucky, but disregards the holdings of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, In re Baltimore Pearl Hominy Co. reported in 5 F.2d 553, holding to the contrary.
Judge Byers in Re Columbia Tobacco Co., D.C., 38 F.Supp. 148, 149, decided the precise point now before this court wherein he stated the question to be:
In the same opinion it was further stated: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Matter of Supreme Plastics, Inc.
...(1888); First National City Bank v. United States, infra; In re Baltimore Pearl Hominy Co., 5 F.2d 553 (4th Cir. 1925); In re Rogers, 101 F.Supp. 555 (S.D. Cal.1951). The bankruptcy court concluded, and it is undisputed here, that Harris made the rental payments to protect his lien interest......
-
In re Co-Build Companies, Inc.
...be subrogated to the government's priority in the bankrupt's assets for the price paid by them at the invalid tax sale.10 In the case of In re Rogers,11 the United States District Court for the Southern District of California held that a claim for a payment made prior to bankruptcy by a sur......
-
In re Page Express, Inc.
...33 F.Supp. 160 (W.D.La. 1940). The petitioner relies upon In re Columbia Tobacco Co., 121 F.2d 641 (2d Cir. 1941), and In re Rogers, 101 F.Supp. 555 (S.D.Cal.1951). Both of these cases involved the claims of surety companies which had been required, under the terms of their respective bonds......
-
In re Cleveland
...of the estate. There is a substantial division of the authorities on this question which is amply discussed in In re Rogers, D.C.Cal.1951, 101 F.Supp. 555. Exemplary of the decisions holding that there can be no subrogation is In re Minogue, D.C.N.Y.1930, 39 F.2d A leading decision in the F......