R.S. § 3466, giving to the United States priority in payment of
debts due to it by any person who is insolvent, is inapplicable to
a general claim in bankruptcy which was transferred to the United
States, or to which it became subrogated, after the filing of the
petition in bankruptcy. P.
307 U. S. 207.
So
held as to a claim -- assumed to be a claim of the
United States -- upon a note assigned to the United States by a
bank after the filing of a petition in bankruptcy by the maker. The
note was covered by a policy of insurance issued to the bank under
the National Housing Act; the maker had defaulted, and the balance
due was paid to the bank by U.S. Treasury check subsequently to the
filing of the petition in bankruptcy.
Question certified by the Circuit Court of Appeals upon an
appeal from an order of the District Court, 24 F. Supp. 463, which
confirmed and approved an order of the referee in bankruptcy
denying priority to a claim.
Page 307 U. S. 201
MR. JUSTICE REED delivered the opinion of the Court.
The case is here on certificate from the Circuit Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit with a request for instructions
needed in a pending cause. § 239, Jud.Code, 28 U.S.C. § 346. The
following facts are stated: on August 10, 1934, the Federal Housing
Administrator issued a policy of insurance, under the provisions of
the National Housing Act, Title 1, § 2, [
Footnote 1] to the California Bank, a banking
corporation. On January 2, 1936, the California Bank, under the
protection of this policy, made a loan to the Monterey Brewing
Company. The company paid part of the indebtedness, but defaulted
on the balance on February 2, 1937. On April 5, 1937, it filed a
petition in bankruptcy and was adjudicated a bankrupt. Under the
insurance contract, the bank had to wait until 60 days after
default before making claim upon the Administrator. The 60 days
expired two days before bankruptcy of the company. The bank,
however, did not present its claim to the Administrator until July
3, 1937; the latter paid August 4, 1937, by draft drawn on the
Page 307 U. S. 202
Treasury of the United States; the bank assigned the note to the
"United States of America." Later, the Administrator filed a claim
upon the note in the name of the United States of America.
The referee allowed it as a general claim only. The district
court approved.
In re Monterey Brewing Co., 24 F. Supp.
463. On the appeal to the circuit court of appeals, the following
question, decisive of the controversy, [
Footnote 2] was certified:
"Where, prior to the filing of a petition for and adjudication
in bankruptcy of the maker of a promissory note payable to a bank,
the Federal Housing Administrator, under the provisions of the
National Housing Act, insured the payee bank against the nonpayment
of the note by its maker, upon which note the maker became in
default more than sixty days prior to said filing and adjudication,
and upon demand of the insured bank made after the adjudication,
the Federal Housing Administrator paid to the bank its claim
arising from such default, and procured an assignment to the United
States of the claim of the insured bank against the bankrupt, which
claim had not been presented or proved in bankruptcy by the insured
bank, and presented such claim in the name of the United States to
the trustee in bankruptcy having before him other allowed aims
against the bankrupt, is such claim entitled to priority over such
other claims under sec. 3466 of the Revised Statutes (31 U.S.C. §
191) by reason of the provisions of sec. 64(b)(7) [11 U.S.C. §
104(b)(7)]."
Section 64(b)(7) conferred priority upon
"debts owing to any person who by the laws of . . . the United
States is entitled to priority:
Provided, That the
term
Page 307 U. S. 203
'person' . . . shall include . . . the United States. . . .
[
Footnote 3]"
Section 3466 of the Revised Statutes, the basis for the claimed
priority, provides that
"Whenever any person indebted to the United States is insolvent
. . . , the debts due to the United States shall be first
satisfied, and the priority hereby established shall extend . . .
to cases in which an act of bankruptcy is committed."
Although an amendment of the National Housing Act authorized the
Administrator to sue and be sued in any court of competent
jurisdiction, State or Federal, [
Footnote 4] it is not necessary in answering the present
certificate to determine whether, by this addition, the Congress
intended to give the Administrator the status of a corporation or
other entity distinct from the United States, and, by such status,
to confer on or withhold from claims of the Federal Housing
Administration against bankrupts the advantages of section 3466.
[
Footnote 5] We can deal only
with a claim of the Federal Housing Administration assigned to the
United States after the adjudication in bankruptcy of the obligor.
It is assumed that such a claim belongs to, and is made by, the
United States. [
Footnote 6]
Page 307 U. S. 204
Before considering the applicability of § 3466 to claims of the
United States acquired after the bankruptcy of the obligor, we must
examine the contention of the Government that it possessed a
provable claim at the time the petition in bankruptcy was filed.
This assertion predicates an agreement, express or implied, by the
obligor to indemnify the Government for any loss it may sustain by
reason of its insurance of the bank. The question certified
contains nothing as to the contract of insurance except that it was
under the provisions of the National Housing Act, and "insured the
payee bank against the nonpayment of the note by its maker." The
section of that act, quoted above, does not indicate any privity
between the bankrupt maker and the Government based upon the
insurance contract. Even if we accept as accurate the statement in
the certificate that the Administration insured against the
nonpayment of this note, [
Footnote
7] there is nothing in the record to connect the maker with the
insurance. The Government attempts to fill in the facts lacking in
the certification by printing in its brief a regulation of the
Federal Housing Administration, Number 10 of July 15, 1935,
[
Footnote 8] and the form of
credit statement from the note maker to the bank in use, presumably
at
Page 307 U. S. 205
the time of the loan. The form contains this sentence, as well
as information as to the applicant's employment or business, his
income, and the property to be improved: "The following information
is given for the purpose of inducing you to grant credit under the
provisions of Title I of the National Housing Act."
The regulation and the credit statement certainly do not supply
the facts necessary to the conclusion that this particular form of
credit statement was used. As the certificate does not show the
State in which the note was executed, payable, or enforceable, we
are left to speculate as to the applicable law of indemnity. It is
not clear that a voluntary guarantor can recover in every
jurisdiction from the involuntary principal who has not requested
the service. [
Footnote 9] But
even if we assume that such a guarantor may recover upon an implied
promise of reimbursement, the rule is not effective here. The
statement of the case and the question certified show that the
claim in bankruptcy of the Government is based upon the note, duly
assigned to it after bankruptcy. As no proof was made of any claim
for reimbursement, such a claim is not involved. [
Footnote 10]
The claim on the note, assigned to the United States
subsequently to the maker's bankruptcy, has priority, if at all, by
virtue of the general provisions of Section 3466, as recognized by
§ 64(b)(7) of the Bankruptcy Act. [
Footnote 11]
Page 307 U. S. 206
That subdivision granted priority ahead of dividends to
creditors, to claims entitled to priority under the laws of the
United States. Priority has been secured to the United States in
varying language throughout its history. [
Footnote 12] The tendency has been to interpret these
provisions liberally, to secure the advantage sought by the
Congress. [
Footnote 13] "As
this statute has reference to the public good, it ought to be
liberally construed." [
Footnote
14] It has been said that "nothing else appearing," even claims
under the railroad Federal Control Act, 40 Stat. 451, would be
entitled to priority. [
Footnote
15] But this principle of construction is subject to the
limitation that the generality of the language of the section is
restricted by the purpose to grant priority to the United States
only, and by legislative intention as shown by other statutes.
Consequently priority was refused to corporations wholly owned by
the United States [
Footnote
16] and to the Director General of Railroads because
Page 307 U. S. 207
§ 10 of the Federal Control Act manifested an intention that the
carriers under federal control should be treated as before their
transfer to federal operation. [
Footnote 17] The United States itself, when it sought
priority for its loans under the Transportation Act, was denied the
benefits of § 3466 because the intention to build up the credit
standing of the railroads was inconsistent with the claimed
priority. [
Footnote 18]
We are of the view that § 3466 is inapplicable to general claims
in bankruptcy transferred to the United States, or to which it has
become subrogated on payment, after the filing of the petition for
the reason that the rights of creditors are fixed by the Bankruptcy
Act as of the filing of the petition in bankruptcy. This is true
both as to the bankrupt and among themselves. [
Footnote 19] The assets at that time are
segregated for the benefit of creditors. [
Footnote 20] The transfer of the assets to someone for
application to "the debts of the insolvent, as the rights
Page 307 U. S. 208
and priorities of creditors may be made to appear," [
Footnote 21] takes place as of that
time.
The question certified should therefore be answered in the
negative.
Question answered "no."
THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS took no part in the
consideration or decision of this case.
[
Footnote 1]
"Sec. 2. The Administrator is authorized and empowered, upon
such terms and conditions as he may prescribe, to insure banks . .
. which are approved by him as eligible for credit insurance,
against losses which they may sustain as a result of loans and
advances of credit, and purchases of obligations representing loans
and advances of credit, made by them . . . for the purpose of
financing alterations, repairs, and improvements upon real
property. In no case shall the insurance granted by the
Administrator under this section to any such financial institution
exceed 20 percentum of the total amount of the loans, advances of
credit, and purchases made by such financial institution for such
purpose. . . ."
Act of June 27, 1934, c. 847, 48 Stat. 1246.
[
Footnote 2]
United States v. Mayer, 235 U. S.
55,
235 U. S. 66;
cf. Wheeler Lumber Co. v. United States, 281 U.
S. 572,
281 U. S. 577;
Indian Motorcycle Co. v. United States, 283 U.
S. 570,
283 U. S.
573.
[
Footnote 3]
Act of May 27, 1926, c. 406, 44 Stat. 667, 11 U.S.C. §
104(b)(7). This section has been amended by the Act of June 22,
1938, c. 575, § 64, 52 Stat. 874.
[
Footnote 4]
Act of August 23, 1935, c. 614, § 344(a), 49 Stat. 722.
[
Footnote 5]
The purpose of the amendment was said to be "clarifying."
Sen.Rep. No. 1007 on H.R. 7617, 74th Congress, 1st Session, p. 24.
The House Report merely stated its substance. H.R.Rep. No. 1822 on
H.R. 7617, 74th Congress, 1st Session, p. 57. The Congressional
Record is silent on this clause of the Banking Act of 1935.
A corporation wholly owned by the United States is held without
the advantages of § 3466.
Sloan Shipyards Corp. v. U.S.
Fleet Corporation, 258 U.
S. 549,
258 U. S.
570.
[
Footnote 6]
Cf. Wagner v. McDonald, 96 F.2d 273, 274;
In re
Dickson's Estate, 84 P.2d 661, 664;
Dupont De Nemours
& Co. v. Davis, 264 U. S. 456;
Clallam County v. United States, 263 U.
S. 341;
North Dakota-Montana Wheat Growers' Assn. v.
United States, 66 F.2d 573, 576, 577.
[
Footnote 7]
This is not in accord with the practice under Title I of the
National Housing Act. The act is administered so as to create an
insurance reserve for each approved financial institution of not to
exceed the authorized percentage of the total amount of qualified
paper.
Cf. Regulations, Federal Housing Administration,
Property Improvement Loans, 3 Federal Register 358, regulation
number 17.
[
Footnote 8]
"The question of the financial condition of the borrower is left
to the reasonable judgment of the insured institution as a credit
matter. The borrower must furnish the lending institution a
financial or credit statement, approved as to form by the
Administrator, which, in the judgment of the insured institution,
shows the borrower to be solvent, with reasonable ability to pay
the obligation and in other respects a reasonable credit risk in
view of the insurance provided by the National Housing Act."
[
Footnote 9]
Cf. Leslie v. Compton, 103 Kan. 92, 172 P. 1015;
Marsh v. Hayford, 80 Me. 97, 13 A. 271;
McPherson v.
Meek, 30 Mo. 345.
[
Footnote 10]
Cf. Insley v. Garside, 121 F. 699, 702.
Cf.
also § 57(i), which provides that,
"Whenever a creditor whose claim against a bankrupt estate is
secured by the individual undertaking of any person fails to prove
such claim, such person may do so in the creditor's name, and, if
he discharge such undertaking in whole or in part, he shall be
subrogated to that extent to the rights of the creditor."
Act of July 1, 1898, c. 541, § 57, 30 Stat. 560, 11 U.S.C. §
93.
[
Footnote 11]
See note 3
supra.
[
Footnote 12]
The Government summarizes the legislative background as
follows:
"The Act of July 31, 1789, § 21, c. 5, 1 Stat. 29, 42, first
gave the United States priority, but was limited to debts due on
bonds for duties. The Act of May 2, 1792, § 18, c. 27, 1 Stat. 259,
263, allowed sureties who paid their debts to the United States to
exercise their priority. The Act of March 3, 1797, § 5, c. 20, 1
Stat. 512, 515, extended the priority to all debts due from any
person. The Act of March 2, 1799, § 65, c. 22, 1 Stat. 627, 676,
applied to bonds for duties. R.S. § 3466 is derived from the Acts
of 1797 and 1799."
[
Footnote 13]
United States v.
Fisher, 2 Cranch 358;
Harrison v.
Sterry, 5 Cranch 289,
9 U. S. 298-299;
United States v. State Bank of
North Carolina, 6 Pet. 29,
31 U. S. 35;
Beaston v. Farmers'
Bank, 12 Pet. 102,
37 U. S. 134;
Lewis, Trustee v. United States, 92 U. S.
618,
92 U. S. 621;
Bramwell v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.,
269 U. S. 483,
269 U. S. 487;
Price v. United States, 269 U. S. 492,
269 U. S.
500.
[
Footnote 14]
Beaston v. Farmers' Bank, supra.
[
Footnote 15]
Mellon v. Michigan Trust Co., 271 U.
S. 236,
271 U. S.
239.
[
Footnote 16]
Sloan Shipyards v. U.S. Fleet
Corp., 258 U. S. 549,
258 U. S. 570.
Even though private parties might have participated in stock
ownership under the law.
See p.
258 U. S.
565.
[
Footnote 17]
Mellon v. Michigan Trust Co., supra, 271 U. S. 240.
[
Footnote 18]
United States v. Guaranty Trust Co., 280 U.
S. 478,
280 U. S.
485-486.
[
Footnote 19]
White v. Stump, 266 U. S. 310,
266 U. S. 313;
In re C. H. Earle, Inc., 2 F.
Supp. 15,
aff'd on the opinion below, 65 F.2d 1013.
Cf. Spokane County v. United States, 279 U. S.
80, 83 [argument of counsel -- omitted];
United
States v. Oklahoma, 261 U. S. 253,
261 U. S. 260,
as to receivership proceedings.
The lower courts have divided upon the issue whether a Federal
Housing Administration claim is entitled to priority. Priority has
been given in
Wagner v. McDonald, 96 F.2d 273;
In re
Wilson, 23 F. Supp.
236;
In re T. N. Wilson, Inc., 24 F. Supp.
651;
cf. In re Dickson's Estate, 84 P.2d 661. Priority
has been denied in
In Re Hansen Bakeries, Inc., 103 F.2d
665;
Federal Housing Administrator v. Moore, 90 F.2d 32;
In re Stamford Auto Supply Co., 25 F. Supp.
530;
In re Miller, 25 F. Supp. 336;
cf. Paul v.
Paul Lighting Fixture Co., 13 Ohio Op. 27. The assignment was
made prior to bankruptcy or insolvency in the
Wagner and
Dickson cases. In the
Wilson and T. N. Wilson,
Inc., cases the time of assignment is uncertain. In the
remaining cases, it came after bankruptcy or insolvency.
[
Footnote 20]
Mueller v. Nugent, 184 U. S. 1,
184 U. S. 14;
May v. Henderson, 268 U. S. 111,
268 U. S.
117.
[
Footnote 21]
Bramwell v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.,
269 U. S. 483,
269 U. S.
490.