State Ind. Acc. Comm. v. Aebi
Decision Date | 16 October 1945 |
Citation | 162 P.2d 513,177 Or. 361 |
Parties | STATE INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION <I>v.</I> AEBI |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
See 6 Am. Jur. 811 8 C.J.S., Bankruptcy, § 572
Appeal from Circuit Court, Polk County.
Action by the State Industrial Accident Commission against John H. Aebi to recover overdue unpaid contributions, penalty, and interest under the Workmen's Compensation Act, owed by the defendant as an employer in a hazardous occupation, wherein plaintiff recovered a judgment. From an order discharging the judgment because of defendant's discharge in bankruptcy, plaintiff appeals.
REVERSED.
Ray H. Lafky, of Salem, for appellant.
Submitted on brief by Otto W. Heider, of Sheridan, for respondent.
Proceeding after discharge in bankruptcy, pursuant to section 6-1002, Vol. 1, O.C.L.A., p. 557. On January 27, 1945, an order was made directing that the judgment theretofore entered against defendant and respondent be discharged because defendant had been granted a discharge in bankruptcy. The judgment thus discharged was based upon overdue, unpaid contributions, penalty and interest which accrued under the terms of the Workmen's Compensation Act by reason of defendant being engaged as an employer in a hazardous occupation. Plaintiff, State Industrial Accident Commission, appeals.
The question here presented is whether a discharge in bankruptcy has the effect of discharging a judgment theretofore rendered against an employer thereafter adjudicated a bankrupt in favor of the State Industrial Accident Commission for unpaid, overdue exactions required by the Workmen's Compensation Act to be paid by employers engaged in occupations declared to be hazardous, unless notice in writing be given to said commission that such employers elect not to contribute to the Industrial Accident Fund. Sections 102-1712, 102-1713 and 102-1721, Vol. 7, O.C.L.A., pp. 630, 633, and section 102-1742, ibid, p. 660.
The complaint herein filed on August 1, 1941, supplies the following pertinent facts:
On May 6, 1942, a default judgment was rendered against defendant in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $945.08 and interest on $789.49 at the rate of 1% per month from September 1, 1941, until paid, together with costs and disbursements taxed at $15.70.
On April 4, 1942, on a petition in bankruptcy filed by defendant in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, defendant was duly adjudicated a bankrupt.
On June 1, 1942, in said bankruptcy proceedings an order of discharge was duly made by the referee in bankruptcy, which, omitting the title and signature, is as follows:
On January 25, 1945, the trial court made the order from which this appeal is taken discharging and satisfying of record said default judgment of May 6, 1942.
For the purposes of this case the following provisions of section 17 of the bankruptcy act are pertinent, to-wit:
"A discharge in bankruptcy shall release a bankrupt from all of his provable debts, except such as (first) are due as a tax levied by the * * * State, * * * or (fourth) were created by his * * * misappropriation, or defalcation while acting * * * in any fiduciary capacity; * * *." U.S.C.A., Title 11, Bankruptcy § 17.
Plaintiff contends that the judgment in suit, being based upon exactions or contributions prescribed by the Workmen's Compensation Act, was not and is not dischargeable in bankruptcy, because as to the contributions required of defendant as an employer, and interest thereon, said judgment is based upon a tax and penalty for nonpayment thereof; and as to the amount retained by defendant from moneys earned by his workmen (section 102-1737, Vol. 7, O.C.L.A., p 656) and not paid to the plaintiff commission, said judgment is based upon a debt created by defendant's misappropriation and defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity. In support of plaintiff's position, as above stated, cases are cited holding that contributions required of employers by unemployment compensation acts are not dischargeable in bankruptcy because such exactions are deemed to be taxes. Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co. 301 U.S. 495, 57 S.Ct. 868, 81 L.Ed. 1245, 109 A.L.R. 1327; Ernst v. Hingeley, 11 Wash. (2d) 171, 118 P. (2d) 795; In re Independent Automobile Forwarding Corporation, 35 F. Supp. 919; In re Wm. Akers Jr. Co. (3 cases) 121 F. (2d) 846, 135 A.L.R. 1503.
Defendant argues that there are such fundamental differences between the Unemployment Compensation Law and the Workmen's Compensation Law that the cases above cited are not in point. These differences are treated in three paragraphs of defendant's brief to which we are restricted in our effort to consider defendant's contention in that regard because his attorney did not favor us with an oral argument.
First. Defendant asserts that the purpose of Unemployment Compensation legislation is to provide social security for the benefit of our economic system by relieving the economic strain of unemployment. Defendant says that the purpose of Workmen's Compensation legislation is to provide a compulsory system of insurance for the protection of injured persons.
Second. Defendant argues that because of the broad purpose of Unemployment Compensation l...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Oregon State Police Officers' Ass'n v. State, 1
...upon individuals, for the use and service of the state * * *.' Black's Law Dictionary 1457 (6th ed 1991)." In State Ind. Acc. Com. v. Aebi, 177 Or. 361, 369, 162 P.2d 513 (1945), the court determined that the employer's contributions under the Workmen's Compensation Act are "taxes" and ther......
-
WORKERS'COMP. TRUST FUND v. Saunders, 98-40032 RCL.
...only a `distinction between the sovereign power of the state and the rights of private citizenry.'") (quoting State Indus. Comm'n. v. Aebi, 177 Or. 361, 162 P.2d 513, 517 (1945)). Furthermore, the "universally applicable to similarly situated entities" requirement has been thought to be unh......
-
Workmen's Compensation Com'n v. Property & Cas. Ins. Guar. Corp.
...government for the purpose of defraying the expenses of an undertaking which it authorized"). See State Industrial Accident Commission v. AEBI, 177 Or. 361, 368, 162 P.2d 513, 516 (1945). See also Territory of Alaska v. Alaska Juneau Gold Mining Co., 105 F.2d 841, 844 (9th Cir.1939); Audubo......
-
New Neighborhoods, Inc. v. West Virginia Workers' Compensation Fund
...the Puerto Rico Workmen's Accident Compensation Act and dealing with the Bankruptcy Act of 1898); State Industrial Accident Commission v. Aebi, 177 Or. 361, 162 P.2d 513 (1945) (involving Oregon's Workmen's Compensation Act and the Bankruptcy Act of 1898); In re Tri-Manufacturing and Sales ......