New York County National Bank v. Albert Massey
Decision Date | 04 January 1904 |
Docket Number | No. 90,90 |
Citation | 48 L.Ed. 380,24 S.Ct. 199,192 U.S. 138 |
Parties | NEW YORK COUNTY NATIONAL BANK, Appt. , v. ALBERT P. MASSEY, Trustee in Bankruptcy of George H. Stege and Frederick H. Stege |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Latham G. Reed, John M. Bowers, and Bowers & Sands for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 138-140 intentionally omitted] Messrs.Louis Sturcke,Albert P. Massey, and Hill, Sturcke, & Andrews for appellee.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the circuit court of appeals for the second circuit, reversing the order of the district court affirming the order of the referee in bankruptcy, allowing a claim against the estate of Stege & Brother. This claim was allowed against the contention of the trustee of the bankrupt, that it could not be proved until the bank should surrender a certain alleged preference given to them in contravention of the bankrupt act. The circuit court of appeals reversed the order of the district court, holding that the bank must first surrender the preference before it could be allowed to prove its claim. 54 C. C. A. 116, 116 Fed. 342. The circuit court of appeals made the following findings of fact:
'April 26, 1899, $10,000, 6 months, due October 26, 1899.
'April 26, 1899, $10,000, 7 months, due November 26, 1899.
'June 26, 1899, $10,000, 4 months, due October 26, 1899.
'August 2, 1899, $10,000, 4 months, due December 2, 1899.
'None of these notes were paid when they fell due, but were all renewed as follows:
'October 26, 1899, $10,000, 3 months, due January 26, 1900.
'November 26, 1899, $10,000, 75 days, due February 9, 1900.
'October 26, 1899, $10,000, 3 months, due January 26, 1900.
'December 2, 1899, $10,000, 69 days, due February 9, 1900.
'At the first meeting of creditors, February 9, 1900, the New York County National Bank filed its claim for $33,790.25.
As a conclusion of law, the court of appeals held that the deposit would amount to a transfer enabling the bank to obtain a greater percentage of the debt due to it than other creditors of the same class, and that allowance of the claim should be refused unless the preference was surrendered. This case requires an examination of certain provisions of the bankrupt law. Section 68 of that law provides:
Section 60 provides (prior to the amendment of February 5, 1903):
Section 57g provides (prior to amendment of February 5, 1903): 'Claims of creditors who have received preferences shall not be allowed unless such creditors shall surrender their preferences.' [30 Stat. at L. 560, chap. 541, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3443.]
Considering, for the moment, § 68, apart from the other sections, subdivisionsa contemplates a set-off of mutual debts or credits between the estate of the bankrupt and the creditor, with an account to be stated and the balance only to be allowed and paid. Subdivision b makes certain specific exceptions to this allowance of set-off, and provides that it shall not be allowed in favor of the debtor of the bankrupt upon an unproved claim or one transferred to the debtor after the filing of the petition in bankruptcy, or within four months before the filing thereof, with a view to its use for the purpose of set-off, with knowledge or notice that the bankrupt was insolvent or had committed an act of bankruptcy. Obviously, the present case does not come within the exceptions to the general rule made by subdivision b. It cannot be doubted that, except under special circumstances, or where there is a statute to the contrary, a deposit of money upon general account with a bank creates the relation of debtor and creditor. The money deposited becomes a part of the general fund of the bank, to be dealt with by it as other moneys, to be lent to customers, and parted with at the will of the bank, and the right of the depositor is to have this debt repaid in whole or in part by honoring checks drawn against the deposits. It creates an ordinary debt, not a privilege or right of a fiduciary...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Ford, Bankruptcy No. 88-00168
...Trustee v. Barre Savings Bank & Trust, 91 Vt. 228, 235, 100 A. 34 (1917). The leading case is New York County National Bank v. Massey, 192 U.S. 138, 24 S.Ct. 199, 48 L.Ed. 380 (1903); see also Loyd, The Development of Setoff, 64 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 541 (1916). The debtor i......
-
State v. Clement Nat. Bank
...has since remained undisturbed. Manhattan Co. v. Blake. 148 U. S. 412, 13 Sup. Ct. 640, 37 L. Ed. 504; National Bank v. Massey, 192 U. S. 138, 24 Sup. Ct. 199, 48 L. Ed. 380. The defendant argues that by the terms of the statute the tax is upon the deposits, and that inasmuch as the deposit......
-
Cunningham v. MERCHANTS'NAT. BANK, 1703.
...check against it. It is not a transfer of property as a payment, pledge, mortgage, gift or security." New York County Bank v. Massey, 192 U. S. 138, 147, 24 S. Ct. 199, 201 (48 L. Ed. 380). We have already called attention to the order of July 26th from Ponzi to the bank to pay and charge t......
-
Gillen v. Wakefield State Bank
...of the Republic v. Millard, 10 Wall. 152, 19 L. Ed. 897;Scammon v. Kimball, 92 U. S. 362, 23 L. Ed. 483;N. Y. County Nat. Bank v. Massey, 192 U. S. 138, 24 S. Ct. 199, 48 L. Ed. 380. The bank may set off the credit of the depositor against his indebtedness thereto upon the maturity of such ......