Mississippi Valley Trust Co. v. Oregon-Washington Timber Co.
| Decision Date | 16 May 1914 |
| Docket Number | 9. |
| Citation | 213 F. 988 |
| Parties | MISSISSIPPI VALLEY TRUST CO. v. OREGON-WASHINGTON TIMBER CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
Snow & McCamant, of Portland, Or., for plaintiffs.
W. V Tanner, Atty. Gen., John M. Wilson, Ass't Atty. Gen. (W M. Williams, of Olympia, Wash., of counsel), for Intervener State of Washington.
Upon the petition of plaintiffs, seeking the foreclosure of certain mortgages upon the property of the defendants, a receiver was appointed herein. The state of Washington intervenes, and asserts a claim for $1,046.80, being the amount of premium, or contribution, due and payable to the state of Washington, under chapter 74, Laws of Washington 1911, upon the actual pay roll of the workmen employed by the defendant Washington Northern Railroad Company, in the extrahazardous departments and employments of its business. These premiums fell due subsequent to the attaching of the lien of the mortgages sought to be foreclosed herein, but before the appointment of the receiver. Under the laws of the state of Washington, the amount due for such a premium is a debt, unsecured by lien upon any specific property, to be collected by civil action.
The state petitions to have its claim for such premium allowed as a prior and preferred claim, to be paid in full. The plaintiff, trustee, resists the petition. No claim is made that its property in the hands of the receiver, is not covered by the mortgages, nor is the state asking to be preferred to unsecured creditors of the defendant railroad company. Its contention is that it is entitled to have its claim paid in full, to the postponement of any mortgage upon the defendant's property.
Plaintiff cites the following authorities; State v. Bank of Maryland, 6 Gill & J. (Md.) 205, 226, 228, 26 Am.Dec. 561; In re Carnegie Trust Co., 151 A.D. 606, 136 N.Y.Supp. 466, affirmed 206 N.Y. 390, 99 N.E. 1096, 46 L.R.A. (N.S.) 260; Orem v. Wrightson, 51 Md. 34, 34 Am.Rep. 286; State v. Foster, 5 Wyo. 199, 38 P. 926, 29 L.R.A. 226, 63 Am.St.Rep. 47; Wise v. Wise Co., 153 N.Y. 507, 47 N.E. 788; State v. Williams, 101 Md. 529, 61 A. 297, 1 L.R.A. (N.S.) 254, 109 Am.St.Rep. 579, 4 Ann.Cas. 970; Freeholders of Middlesex County v. State Bank of New Brunswick, 29 N.J.Eq. 268, 274; Central Trust Co. v. Third Ave. Ry., 186 F. 291, 110 C.C.A. 1; Central Bank of Georgia v. Little, 11 Ga. 346; Zimmerman v. Chelsea Sav. Bank, Michigan, 161 Mich. 704, 127 N.W. 351.
Intervener the state of Washington relies upon the following authorities: State ex. rel. Davis-Smith Co. v. Clausen, 65 Wash. 156, 117 P. 1101, 37 L.R.A. (N.S.) 460; State v. Mountain TBR. Co., 75 Wash. 581, 135 P. 645; New Jersey v. Anderson, 203 U.S. 483, 27 Sup.Ct. 137, 51 L.Ed. 284; In re Otto F. Lange Co. (D.C.) 159 F. 586; In re Industrial Cold Storage & Ice Co. (D.C) 163 F. 390; City of Chattanooga v. Hill, 139 F. 600, 71 C.C.A. 584, 3 Ann.Cas. 237, 238; Hecox v. Teller County, 198 F. 634, 117 C.C.A. 338; In re Conhaim (D.C.) 100 F. 268; In re Halsey Elec. Gen. Co. (D.C.) 23 Am.Bankr.Rep. 401, 175 F. 825; State of N.J. v. Lovell, 24 Am.Bankr.Rep. 562, 179 F. 321, 102 C.C.A. 505, 31 L.R.A. (N.S.) 988.
A claim by the state 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.
The 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 the sovereign was entitled to a preference in payment of debts due to him by an insolvent, and that the state has succeeded to this prerogative.
In this state, by section 1 of the Code of 1881, as re-enacted by Laws of 1891, p. 31 , this state has adopted the common law.
'The common law, so far as it is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, or of the state of Washington, nor incompatible with the institutions and condition of society in this state, shall be the rule of decision in all courts of this state.'
No attempt has been made herein to point out...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Farmers' Exchange Bank of Gallatin
... ... tracing of a trust fund in that the evidence shows that at ... the time the ... U. S. F. & G. Co., 28 S.W.2d 184; ... Miss. Valley Trust Co. v. Oregon-Washington T. Co., ... 213 F. 988; ... ...
-
Ernst v. Hingeley
... ... chap. 74, in the case of Mountain Timber Co. v. State of ... Washington, 243 U.S. 219, 37 ... D.C., 211 F. 212, and Mississippi Valley Trust Co ... v. Oregon-Washington Timber Co., ... ...
-
United States v. Two Gallons of Whisky
... ... others who betrayed the trust and diverted the property to ... unlawful uses, it must be ... ...
-
In re Mytinger
...of the word. This construction is supported by In re Farrell, D. C., 211 F. 212. See, also, Mississippi Valley Trust Company v. Oregon-Washington Timber Company, D. C., 213 F. 988. Cases such as In re Oshkosh Foundry Company, D. C., 28 F.Supp. 412; Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Company......