Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/268/315/case.html
Timestamp: 2017-06-23 23:56:56
Document Index: 301514036

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3466', '§ 64', '§ 14', '§ 64', '§ 1', '§ 28']

Davis v. Pringle (full text) :: 268 U.S. 315 (1925) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center Log In
› Davis v. Pringle
Davis v. Pringle 268 U.S. 315 (1925)
U.S. Supreme CourtDavis v. Pringle, 268 U.S. 315 (1925)Davis v. PringleNos. 786 and 787 argued, No. 1085 submitted, May 4, 1925Decided May 25, 1925268 U.S. 315CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS
Certiorari to three judgments of the circuit court of appeals, the first two denying and the third allowing claims of the United States to priority of payment in bankruptcy proceedings. See also In re Tidewater Coal Exchange, 280 F. 648. Page 268 U. S. 316
The first and second of these cases are claims for freight, storage, and demurrage proved in bankruptcy proceedings by the federal agent, for which the agent asserts priority on the ground that such claims arising during federal control of the railroads in 1918 are debts due to the United States and are preferred by Rev.Stats. § 3466, and by the Bankruptcy Act of July 1, 1898, c. 541, § 64, amended by Acts of February 5, 1903, c. 487, § 14, 32 Stat. 800, and June 15, 1906, c. 3333, 34 Stat. 267. The third is a claim by the United States for amounts paid by the Postmaster General to the bankrupts for bills of exchange and checks drawn by the bankrupts and unpaid, together with protest fees, etc., as to which priority is asserted on the same grounds. The prority was denied in the first two cases by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. 1 F.2d 860, ibid., 864, but it was allowed in the Second Circuit without any reported opinion, following an earlier case in that Circuit, In re Tidewater Coal Exchange, 280 F. 648. Page 268 U. S. 317
We attach little value to this logical concatenation as against the direct effect of § 64, taken according to the Page 268 U. S. 318 normal usages of speech. It is incredible that, after the conspicuous mention of the United States in the first place at the beginning of the section and the grant of a limited priority, Congress should have intended to smuggle in a general preference by muffled words at the end. The states are mentioned in (5) before the United States, showing that their laws were primarily in mind. The United States seems added to avoid some possibly overlooked case. The ordinary dignities of speech would have led to the mention of the United States at the beginning of the clause, if within its purview. Elsewhere in cases of possible doubt, when the Act means the United States, it says the United States. We are of opinion that, to extend the definition of "person" here to the United States would be "inconsistent with the context," and therefore is within the exception at the beginning of § 1. We are confirmed in our opinion by the fact that, in earlier bankruptcy acts, a priority was given to the United States in express terms, and that, for instance, in the Act of March 2, 1867, c. 176, § 28; 14 Stat. 517, 530, "Fifth," persons entitled to priority by the laws of the United States are mentioned when the United States could not have been meant, having been fully secured by the same section, "Second." If it be legitimate to look at them (Schall v. Camors, 251 U. S. 239, 251 U. S. 250), the bills that were before Congress when the present law was passed contained the clause relied upon, but showed by their context that they could not refer to the United States. There was a change of purpose from that of the earlier acts. Guaranty Title & Trust Co. v. Title Guaranty & Surety Co., 224 U. S. 152, 224 U. S. 158 et seq. Public opinion as to the peculiar rights and preferences due to the sovereign has changed. We agree with the view of this point taken by the Chief Justice and Justices Van Devanter and Clarke in United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp. v. Wood, 258 U. S. 549, Page 268 U. S. 319 574, at a time when it was not necessary for the majority to speak upon it. The priority claimed by the United States is not given to it by the law.