Solomon Swarts v. Hammer
| Decision Date | 16 May 1904 |
| Docket Number | No. 238,238 |
| Citation | 48 L.Ed. 1060,24 S.Ct. 695,194 U.S. 441 |
| Parties | SOLOMON L. SWARTS, Trustee in Bankruptcy of Siegel-Hillman Dry Goods Company, Appt. , v. L. F. HAMMER, Jr., Collector of the Revenues of the City of St. Louis, Missouri |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Lee Sale, Solomon L. Swarts, and Wolf & Cohen for appellant.
Messrs. Herbert R. Marlatt, George S. Johnson, Charles A. Houts, and Harry B. Hawes for appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 441-443 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court:
The case involves the validity of taxes imposed upon property in the hands of a trustee in bankruptcy.
The appellant was duly elected and qualified as trustee of the estate of Siegel-Hillman Dry Goods Company, which had been adjudged a bankrupt. The appellant, as such trustee, had in his hands and on deposit in the designated depository the sum of $68,320, belonging to the estate. The appellee, as collector of the revenue of the city of St. Louis, Missouri, filed before the referee a petition alleging state, school, and city taxes for the year 1901 had been regularly assessed against said sum on the first of June, 1900, and that a bill for said taxes, properly certified, had been delivered to him for collection, and prayed for an order directing the taxes to be paid. The trustee filed an answer denying the liability of the property to the taxes. After hearing, the referee made an order directing the appellant to pay to appellee the sum of $1,298.08, the amount of the tax bill for the year 1901, 'together with the accrued penalties and fees provided by laws.'
The order was affirmed by the district court as to the amount of taxes, but disapproved as to accrued penalties and fees. A decree was duly entered, which was affirmed by the circuit court of appeals. 56 C. C. A. 92, 120 Fed. 256.
The argument of appellant has taken somewhat wide range. The case, however, is in narrow compass. The question is not the extent of the power of Congress over the subject of bankruptcy, but what Congress intended by the act of 1898. [30 Stat. at L. 548, chap. 541, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3418.] By § 7 of that act the title to all of the property of the bankrupt not declared to be exempt is vested in the trustee. By the transfer to the trustee no mysterious or peculiar ownership or qualities are given to the property. It is dedicated, it is true, to the payment of the creditors of the bankrupt, but there is nothing in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
California State Board of Equalization v. Sierra Summit, Inc
...which have been upheld, see Otte v. United States, 419 U.S. 43, 52-54, 95 S.Ct. 247, 254-255, 42 L.Ed.2d 212; Swarts v. Hammer, 194 U.S. 441, 444, 24 S.Ct. 695, 696, 48 L.Ed. 1060, and the tax on the liquidation sale presented here. Pp. (b) The Goggin II court's reading of § 960 is contrary......
-
Jaybird Mining Co v. Weir
...U. S. 45, 49, 45 S. Ct. 440, 69 L. Ed. 841; Thompson v. Kentucky, 209 U. S. 340, 28 S. Ct. 533, 52 L. Ed. 822; Swarts v. Hammer, 194 U. S. 441, 24 S. Ct. 695, 48 L. Ed. 1060. In 1873 this court said: 'It may, therefore, be considered as settled that no constitutional implications prohibit a......
-
Otte v. United States 8212 375
...and, through them, the interests of the public, outweigh the minuscule added burden for the estate. See Swarts v. Hammer, 194 U.S. 441, 444, 24 S.Ct. 695, 696, 48 L.Ed. 1060 (1904). If relief is to be considered for bankrupt estates in this respect, it is a matter for legislative, not judic......
-
In re West Coast Cabinet Works
...payment of current taxes as they accrue. Cf. Boteler v. Ingels, 308 U.S. 57, 521, 60 S.Ct. 29, 84 L.Ed. 78, 442; Swarts v. Hammer, 194 U.S. 441, 24 S.Ct. 695, 48 L. Ed. 1060; United States v. Killoren, 8 Cir., 119 F.2d Lastly, the Court observed, 172 F.2d at page 870, citing Arkansas Corpor......
-
Trust(ee) and Abandonment Issues: a Proposal for New Action Regarding Abandonment of Environmentally Contaminated Property
...or inferred from disputable considerations of convenience in administering the estate of the bankrupt." (quoting Swarts v. Hammer, 194 U.S. 441, 444 (1904))).53. Id. at 506.54. Id. at 507.55. See id.56. Id. at 513 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).57. Id. at 510.58. Id. at 515. 59. Id. at 516. Ju......