United States v. Munsey Trust Co of Washington

Decision Date23 June 1947
Docket NumberNo. 847,847
Citation332 U.S. 234,67 S.Ct. 1599,91 L.Ed. 2022,108 Ct.Cl. 765
PartiesUNITED STATES v. MUNSEY TRUST CO. OF WASHINGTON, D.C
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

[Syllabus from pages 234-236 intentionally omitted] Mr. Philip Elman, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Messrs. W. B. Dew, of Hartford, Conn., and Alexander M. Heron, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Mr. Justice JACKSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case presents a problem arising out of contracts for public building construction and repair. The rights inter sese of contractor, surety, assignees and government have been productive of much litigation, but we have not heretofore had to decide whether percentages retained pursuant to contract by the United States may be subjected to its set-off claims despite the claims of a surety who has paid laborers and materialmen.

In May and July, 1940, six contracts were made between the United States and the Federal Contracting Corporation, in which the corporate contractor agreed to paint and repair certain federal buildings. Each contract conformed to the requirements of statute, 49 Stat. 793, 40 U.S.C. § 270a et seq., 40 U.S.C.A. § 270a et seq., by providing for two surety bonds, one conditioned on the completion of the work within the contract period, and the other on the payment of those furnishing labor and material to the contractor. The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company signed those bonds, each of which assigned to it the contractor's claims against the government for sums due on the contracts whenever the surety should be compelled by default of the contractor to fulfill its obligations.1 The work was completed by the contractor apparently in 1940, and accepted by the government. The surety therefore was not called upon to make good the promise of the performance bonds. But the contractor did not pay $13,065.93 owed to persons who had supplied labor and material for performance of five of the six contracts. This indebtedness the surety paid between April and September, 1941 as the payment bonds obliged it to do.

Under the customary terms of its contracts, the government had retained percentages of the progress payments due to the contractor. This retained money, on acceptance of the work, amounted to $12,445.03, but it was not disbursed. On October 18, 1940, the Federal Contracting Corporation submitted a bid to the United States for another painting job, in St. Louis. That bid was accepted, but the contractor then failed to enter into contract for the work. Another contractor painted the building for a price which left the government considerably more out-of-pocket than it would have been had Federal undertaken performance at its bid price. It is undisputed that $6,731.50 is the amount of damages sustained by the government after it had applied the contractor's deposit of $415.00 in reduction.

Almost inevitably, court process was begun to untangle claims to the money the United States still owed on the six contracts. A stockholder of Federal asked the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to appoint a receiver2 to collect the money. The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company was made a party to that action. Respondent here, the Munsey Trust Company, was appointed receiver with directions to demand and authority to receive from the United States the proceeds of the six contracts. The order of appointment also recited that 'the proceeds of all collections made by the Receiver pursuant to this order shall be held for the reimbursement of the defendant The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company for expenditures made by it in the payment of furnishers of labor and material under the several contracts of the Federal Contracting Corporation.'

On demand by the receiver for the amounts due, the General Accounting Office deducted the government's claim of $6,731.50 and paid over $5,713.53. Aetna, by letter to the Comptroller General, protested the government's settlement by set-off and asserted its right to an additional $3,568.23.3 The receiver also protested the set-off and demanded $3,143.23 for reimbursement of the surety. It relied upon Maryland Casualty Co. v. United States, 100 Ct.Cl. 513; Id., Ct.Cl., 53 F.Supp. 436. The Acting Comptroller General declined to follow the opinion of the Court of Claims, in the absence of ruling by this Court, and rejected the protests. When the receiver reported its efforts to the district court, it was ordered to turn over to the surety the money collected, less $500. That sum was for prosecution of suit in the Court of Claims for the recovery of whatever other moneys 'may be due under the contracts of the Federal Contracting Corporation.' This action was begun, and the Court of Claims gave judgment for $3,568.23 to respondent. 67 F.Supp 976. We granted the government's petition for certiorari because of the importance and novelty of the question and the cumulative effect of Maryland Casualty Co. v. United States, supra, and the decision below. 330 .S. 814, 6 7 S.Ct. 863.

In these cases, it is usual for the rights relied upon to be largely derivative or subrogated ones. Decision will be attended with unnecessary confusion and difficulty if it is not clear whose rights are being asserted and who claims them. The Court of Claims treated this case as though the surety were plaintiff. But the district court directed the receiver to bring the suit. Its order of appointment made it the representative of Federal Contracting Corporation, although the sums it was to collect were to be held for the reimbursement of Aetna. The second order authorized this action to collect whatever other money might be held to be due under the six contracts which the government would not voluntarily pay. Certainly, the receiver sued at least in the right of Federal, but since its efforts were directed to be for the benefit of Aetna, it might assert the surety's rights also. Samuel Olson & Co. v. Voorhees, 3 Cir., 292 F. 113, 115.

If the right of the United States to make the set-off were opposed only by the claims of the contractor, this case would present no difficulty. The government has the same right 'which belongs to every creditor, to apply the unappropriated moneys of his debtor, in his hands, in extinguishment of the debts due to him.' Gratiot v. United States, 15 Pet. 336, 370, 10 L.Ed. 759; McKnight v. United States, 98 U.S. 179, 186, 25 L.Ed. 115. More than that, federal statute gives jurisdiction to the Court of Claims to hear and determine 'All set-offs, counterclaims, claims for damages, whether liquidated or unliquidated, or other demands whatsoever on the part of the Government of the United States against any claimant against the Government in said court * * *.' Judicial Code § 145, 28 U.S.C. § 250 (2), 28 U.S.C.A. § 250(2). This power given to the Court of Claims to strike a balance between the debts and credits of the government, by logical implication gives power to the Comptroller General to do the same, subject to review by that court. Insofar as the suitor in the Court of Claims asserted the contractor's title to the sum in dispute, that court was under statutory duty to recognize the undisputed claim for damages of the United States. Cherry Cotton Mills, Inc., v. United States, 327 U.S. 536, 66 S.Ct. 729, 90 L.Ed. 835.

But the surety urges that it is subrogated also to the rights of laborers and materialmen whom it paid and of the United States. From Prairie State Nat. Bank of Chicago v. United States, 164 U.S. 227, 17 S.Ct. 142, 41 L.Ed. 412, to American Surety Co. v. Sampsell, 327 U.S. 269, 66 S.Ct. 571, 90 L.Ed. 663, we have recognized the peculiarly equitable claim of those responsible for the physical completion of building contracts to be paid from available moneys ahead of others whose claims come from the advance of money. But in all those cases, the owner was a mere stakeholder and had no rights of its own to assert. Respondent tells us that here the United States is in the same position and that as a general creditor, it has no more right to the money which it holds than does any other general creditor of the contractor.

At the time demand for payment was made by the receiver, the claim of the United States on the St. Louis contract was extant for some time. The disbursing officers, therefore, did not concede that they held the entire amount of the retained percentages for distribution to the contractor or others. And one whose own appropriation and payment of money is necessary to create a fund for general creditors is not a general creditor. He is not compelled to lessen his own chance of recovering what is due him by setting up a fund undiminished by his claim, so that others may share it with him. In fact, he is the best secure of credit ors; his security is his own justified refusal to pay what he owes until he is paid what is due him.

But the infirmity in respondent's case goes deeper. If the United States were obligated to pay laborers...

To continue reading

Request your trial
495 cases
  • Montavon v. US, Civ. A. No. 94-265-A.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • October 11, 1994
    ...right of setoff belongs to every creditor, including the United States, through common law, United States v. Munsey Trust Co., 332 U.S. 234, 239, 67 S.Ct. 1599, 1601-02, 91 L.Ed. 2022 (1947), and additionally to the United States by statute. 31 U.S.C. § 3728(a). This statute provides that w......
  • Am. Fid. Fire Ins. Co. v. Construcciones Werl, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Virgin Islands
    • November 26, 1975
    ...v. United States, 164 U.S. 227 (1896), Henningsen v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 208 U.S. 404 (1908), United States v. Munsey Trust Company, 332 U.S. 234 (1947), Pearlman v. Reliance Insurance Company, 371 U.S. 132 (1962) and related cases. Because of the length of that analysis,......
  • In re Medina
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Oregon
    • October 11, 1994
    ...moneys of his debtor, in his hands, in extinguishment of the debts due to him." United States v. Munsey Trust Co. of Washington, D.C., 332 U.S. 234, 67 S.Ct. 1599, 91 L.Ed. 2022 (1947) (citing Gratiot v. United States, 40 U.S. (15 Pet) 336, 370, 10 L.Ed. 759 (1841); McKnight v. United State......
  • US v. TAC Const. Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi
    • January 30, 1991
    ...construction projects may not recover compensation from the United States. See United States v. Munsey Trust Co. of Washington, D.C., 332 U.S. 234, 241, 67 S.Ct. 1599, 1602, 91 L.Ed. 2022 (1947) ("laborers and materialmen do not have enforceable rights against the United States for their co......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • The Construction Industry in the U.S. Supreme Court:Part 2, Beyond Contract Law
    • United States
    • ABA General Library The Construction Lawyer No. 41-3, July 2021
    • July 1, 2021
    ...of Nat’l Automatic Sprinkler Indus. Pension Fund, 434 U.S. 586 (1978). 33. 371 U.S. 132 (1962). 34. See United States v. Munsey Tr. Co., 332 U.S. 234 (1947). 35. Pearlman , 371 U.S. at 137–41. 36. Dep’t of Army v. Blue Fox, Inc., 525 U.S. 255 (1999). 37. See 40 U.S.C. § 3134(a). 38. 5 U.S.C......
  • THE ROLE OF OFFSET IN THE COLLECTION OF FEDERAL TAXES.
    • United States
    • Florida Tax Review Vol. 25 No. 1, September 2021
    • September 22, 2021
    ...Cir. 1996), aff'd, 122 F.3d 851 (9th Cir. 1997) (discussing the evolution of offset). (16.)United States v. Munsey Tr. Co. of Wash., D.C., 332 U.S. 234, 239 (1947) ("The government has the same right which belongs to every creditor, to apply the unappropriated moneys of his debtor, in his h......
  • Annual survey of fidelity and surety law, 1998.
    • United States
    • Defense Counsel Journal Vol. 66 No. 1, January 1999
    • January 1, 1999
    ...707 So.2d 1100 (Fla. 1998). (24.) 593 So.2d 195 (Fla. 1992). (25.) 959 S.W.2d 490 (Mo.App. 1998). (26.) United States v. Munsey Trust Co., 332 U.S. 234 (27.) 140 F.3d 622 (5th Cir. 1998). (28.) 665 N.Y.S.2d 79 (App.Div. 1st Dep't 1997). (29.) 136 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 1998). The decision below ......
  • New Restatement of Suretyship and Guaranty raises some practical problems.
    • United States
    • Defense Counsel Journal Vol. 65 No. 2, April 1998
    • April 1, 1998
    ...Howard Ruda, New York City; Peter Winship, Southern Methodist University School of law; and Robert A. Zadek, San Francisco. (3.) 332 U.S. 234 (4.) 371 U.S. 132 (1962). (5.) For a discussion of these two worlds, see Donald J. Rapson, History and Background of the Restatement of Suretyship, 3......
1 provisions
  • Part 240. Indorsement and Payment of Checks Drawn On the United States Treasury [Details]
    • United States
    • Code of Federal Regulations 2023 Edition Title 31. Money and Finance: Treasury Subtitle B. Regulations Relating to Money and Finance Chapter II. Fiscal Service, Department of the Treasury Subchapter A. Bureau of the Fiscal Service Part 240. Indorsement and Payment of Checks Drawn On the United States Treasury
    • January 1, 2023
    ...U.S.C. 301; 12 U.S.C. 391; 31 U.S.C. 321, 3327, 3328, 3331, 3334, 3343, 3711, 3712, 3716, 3717; 332 U.S. 234(1947); 318 U.S. ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT