Court Opinion

ID: 9868599
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 18:43:00.980516+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:51.731282
License: Public Domain

Response to Petition eob. Reheaeing.
It is urged through the petition for rehearing that the court overlooked the material fact that this is a suit for the collection of taxes not dischargeable in bankruptcy and that the bill may be maintained by the State. The opinion filed is referred to for the discussion of that subject.
It may be added that this is not a direct proceeding, as by distress warrant, to enforce payment of taxes. It is an effort to set aside alleged fraudulent transfers by the bankrupt. All assets of the. bankrupt, including choses in action, passed to the control of the trustee upon the adjudication of bankruptcy. He alone can maintain *357suits to recover them. The fact that taxes are non-dis-chargeable in bankruptcy would not authorize the State courts to ignore provisions of the bankruptcy act which clothe the trustee with exclusive power over the bankrupt’s assets. The priority of the State’s claim, recognized by section 17 of the bankruptcy act, does not affect the power of the trustee over the bankrupt’s assets. When the assets are gathered by him, the act controls their distribution, and under it the State’s claim for taxes is given priority.
It was not necessary, in the opinion filed, to discuss the question of whether or not the bill stated an action for unliquidated damages, for the determination was conclusively rested on two other propositions. Because we did not, authorizes no inference that the court intended to hold that an action by the State to recover taxes was a suit for unliquidated damages.
The rehearing is denied.