Document: 423 U.S. 77 96 S.Ct. 310 46 L.Ed.2d 219 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Thomas W. MOORE, Jr., etc., et al. No. 74-687. Argued Oct. 15, 1975. Decided Dec. 2, Syllabus Obligations of an insolvent debtor arising from default in the performance Government contracts, occurring before assignment for benefit creditors held entitled to statutory priority accorded "debts due United States" under 31 U.S.C. § 191, even though obligations were unliquidated amount at time assignment. Pp. 80-86. (a) Nothing on face and no potential difficulty administering it, require any distinction between liquidated debts purpose priority; statute's language looks payment rather than when is made. P. 83. (b) To construe words as including claims not being restricted those that would date have given rise a common-law action debt, comports with treatment Bankruptcy Acts, current Act. 83-85. (c) The question fixed independent "events after insolvency," only precise awaited future events. 85-86. 5 Cir., 497 F.2d 976, reversed remanded. Harriet S. Shapiro, Washington, D. C., petitioner. Thomas Osa Harris, Houston, Tex., respondents. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. 1 We granted certiorari decide whether creditors, are obligation was hold obligations, made assignment, States Rev.Stat. 3466, we reverse. 2 (1) 3 facts dispute. In June 1966 respondent Emsco Screen Pipe Company Texas, Inc., contracted three separate contracts supply Navy, Army, Defense Supply Agency certain fabricated items aggregate agreed price $310,296. subsequently advised Navy it could perform without advance money yet terms contracts; unwilling make advance. treated its contract terminated August 31, 1966. repudiated Army contract, notified intent treat during same month, although formal termination until December 6, October 19, 1966, failure deliver. 4 Respondent voluntary all assets, totaling $55,707.28, 20, Moore, assignee creditors. company owed city Houston approximately $6,000, more $68,000 private who consented Thus alone exceeded known corporate assets debtor. did consent but filed proof Moore. Government's claim, reprocurement goods negotiations eventually set $51,680, exclusive interest. Moore refused accord these which provides: 6 "Whenever person indebted insolvent, or whenever estate deceased debtor, hands executors administrators, insufficient pay deceased, shall be first satisfied; established extend well cases having sufficient property his debts, makes thereof, effects absconding, concealed, absent attached by process law, act bankruptcy committed." 7 then sued respondents District That court found defaulted excess $67,000, interest, 3466 afforded status them States." 8 Court Appeals reversed, one judge dissenting, holding not, amounts payable hence due" priority. v. 976 (CA5 1974). define this term, looked limits permitted recovery "sums mathematical computation." Id., 978. One concurred separately, concluding claim must ascertained prior tribunal jurisdiction bind contracting parties. Judge Thornberry dissented; he relied King States, 379 329, 85 427, 13 315 (1964), other holdings effect Congress intended give special protection statute construed accomplish objective. Small Business Administration McClellan, 364 446, 81 200 (1960); Emory, 314 423, 62 317, 86 L.Ed. (1941); Bramwell U. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 269 483, 176, 70 368 (1926). dissent viewed existence determinative, extent 9 (2) 10 issue almost old Constitution, roots reach back further into English common law; Crown exercised sovereign prerogative paid R. Clark, Law Receivers 669, p. 1223 (3d ed. 1959). Many prerogative, inherent incident sovereignty. Pauley California, 75 120, 133 (CA9 1934); People Farmers' State Bank, 335 Ill. 617, 167 N.E. 804 (1929); re Carnegie Trust 206 N.Y. 390, 99 1096 (1912); Bank Maryland, Gill Johns. 205, 26 Am.Dec. 561 (Md. 1834). Federal priority, however, rests matter settled law statute. Price 492, 499-500, 180, 181, 373 (1926); North Carolina, Pet. 29, 35, 308 (1832). 11 earliest enacted Act July 1789, Stat. dealt bonds posted importers lieu duties release imported goods. It provided "debt such discharged "in insolvency, where administrators . ". 21, 42. A 1792 enactment broadened Act's coverage providing "cases insolvency" should taken include situations now covers. 263. 12 1797 applied "person hereafter becoming bond otherwise ." 515. Then 1799, gave teeth making administrator decedent's personally liable because another creditor preference. Mar. 627, 676. 1799 Acts survived day essentially unchanged, §§ 191 192 (Rev.Stat. 3467). serves public policy Crown's prerogative. As Story wrote 1832, proceeds "motives policy, order secure adequate revenue sustain burthens discharge debts. (A)s has mainly reference good, there reason giving (the statute) strict narrow interpretation." supra, 35. For nearly two centuries mind. itself, Pet., 38, rejected bank's argument they presently payable, using apt today's case well: 14 "No can perceived, why, deficiency persons, legislature their decease, become afterwards. case, applies equal force other; omission provide regard futuro, abandonment claims, except pro rata dividend. general assignments debtors, still stronger against futuro; might, option, preferences postpone latter description, exclude altogether." 15 similar reasons, language, courts types. See 3A J. Oglebay Collier P 64.502 (14th 1975); see also Plumb, Priority Insolvency: Proposals Reform, Mich.L.Rev. 3, 10-12 (1971). Indeed, decisions Court, "(o)nly plainest inconsistency warrant our finding implied exception operation so clear command 3466." U.S., 433, S.Ct., 322. 16 (3) 17 argues read narrowly, Three factors lead us different result. 18 First, nothing statute, drawn express satisfied"; moment concedes here, throughout litigation, debt valid debtor's assets; rata, creditor. While concession does dispose unduly delay distribution estate, since occasion like delay. Moreover, if basis, could, payment. 19 Second, urges mean debt. But persuasive why technical requirements commonlaw pleading statute.1 look instead provisions several enacted, definition phrases used here issue. See, e. g., Oklahoma, 261 253, 43 295, 67 638 (1923); 426, 319, 315. focus precisely problems insolvency analogy payments insolvents' estates. 20 Act, passed 1800, near contemporary prove bankruptcy, some became proceedings.2 receive "as had been her bankrupt." 39, 32. 1841 1867 contained provisions.3 permits will allowed reasonably estimated soon enough delayed. 103(a)(8), (9), 93(d).4 "is defeated unnecessarily restricting application word 'debts' within meaning," 500, "debts" meaning restrictive statutes over 175 years do just that. 21 Finally, parties agree federal regularly fact unliquidated, discussing case. (1964); National Surety 254 73, 41 65 143 (1920); Brunner, 282 535 (CA10 1960); Barnes, F. 705 (CC SDNY 1887). relies dicta Massachusetts 333 611, 68 747, 756, 92 968 (1948), "obligations wholly contingent ultimate maturity upon happening events due." cited, insolvency"; events.5 Given consistent Story's remarks 39-are particularly appropriate: 22 "It unimportant state, construction act, understood practically acted government, individuals, ever enactment. estates, persons assignments, footing correctness. practice long general, would, furnish strong grounds liberal construction; disturbed introducing train serious mischiefs. think founded true exposition act: susceptible doubt, acquiescence justify yielding safe reasonable exposition." 23 judgment remanded proceedings opinion. 24 ordered. (1832): "Wherever debitum presenti, solvendum embraces much payable." phrase least statute; certainly excluded And rested decision phrase. 82, infra, 86. 32, "obligee bottomry respondentia bond, assured insurance, admitted contingency loss, thereon." 1841, 5, 440, 445, uncertain might proved absolute; appropriate discount. 1867, c. 517, future, damages claims: "(T)he may cause assessed mode deem best, sum estate. No above specified Title 1(14) defines "any demand, provable bankruptcy." Massachusetts, cut off right elect unemployment compensation tax. Permitting post-insolvency election reasoned, result anomalous. "contingency" course, someone defeat entirely. present is, note, quite different: liability vel non determined exist creditors; subsequent cannot obligation.

Category: 11