TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wilkinson v. Babbitt

Wilkinson v. Babbitt, 29 F. Cas. 1253 (1877)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri · Historical Federal Courts
Decided
July 1, 1877
Judges
Dillon
Citations
29 F. Cas. 12534 Dill. 207
Cited by 5
Headnotes
Case No. 17,668. United States as a Preferred Creditor-Subrogation. The complainant, as collector of internal revenue. held not entitled, by way of subrogation, to the rights of the United States as a preferred creditor. [Cited in Dorian v. City of Shreveport, 28 Fed. 295; German Bank v. U. S., 148 U. S. 581, 13 Sup. Ct. 705.] [Cited in Goble v. O’Connor (Neb.) 61 N. W. 135.]
Summary
■ This was an appeal from a decree of the district court [of the United States for the Western district of Missouri] sustaining a demurrer to the bill of complaint and dismissing the bill. [Case unreported.] The bill charged that the defendant [James C. Babbitt] is the assignee in bankruptcy of the Union German Savings Bank; that the bank had been adjudged a bankrupt April 3d, 1873; that at the time of the bankruptcy there was on deposit in the bank $1,062.02. moneys belonging to the United States, which had been placed there by one Yoede, who, at the time of such deposit, was a deputy collector under the complainant [C. B. Wilkinson], who was collector of internal revenue; that the moneys so deposited were moneys arising from collections of internal revenue. The complainant, as required by law, paid the aforesaid sum into the treasury. The complainant, in his bill, claimed that by the deposit of the money in the bank he became the surety of Voede, and of the bank to the United States; and that the United States, until the 3d of April. 1873, had a cause of action against the bank and Voede; and that, by virtue of the payment of the said sum of $1.062.62 to the United States by complainant, he became entitled to the preference of the United States as against the bank, and asked to be so subrogated as a preferred creditor. The defendant demurred.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Dillon

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

DILLON, Circuit Judge.

The deposit of the money by Voede in the Union (Herman Savings Bank was the act of complainant; the deputy, who is his appointee, authorized by law, derives the breath of life from the collector — is appointed by, and receives his pay from, and is removable at the pleasure of, the collector. The deposit of money in the bank did not create the bank the principal debtor, and the complainant the surety. The various sections of the internal revenue act of 1862 [ 12 Stat. 432 ] show that the collector is the only person known to the law as the custodian of the revenue collected, until it is paid into the proper depository. While the doctrine of subrogation, which entitles the surety to all of the liens and securities of the creditor, on paying the latter the debt of the principal, is fully recognized in equity, and in certain cases at law, this is not a ease for its application, and complainant is not entitled to be subrogated to the rights of the United States as a preferred creditor against the bank; and, moreover, under the acts of congress, the deposit of the money in the bank, by Voede or Wilkinson, was positively forbidden, and the deposit there was unlawful. The complainant, therefore. is not in a position to ask the aid of a court of equity to give him the fruits of an unlawful act, and to do so would encourage other officers in the violation of the law. Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 5 cases

View all citing references →
1888: 11896: 11900: 11913: 11933: 118882026peak 1888 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Wilson9 S.W. 155 (Tex. 1888)
  2. Montgomery v. Ward151 So. 583 (Ala. 1933)
  3. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Hart76 F. 673 (8th Cir. 1896)
  4. Galliland v. Williams61 So. 291 (Ala. 1913)
  5. The Livingstone104 F. 918 (W.D.N.Y. 1900)

Most recent

  1. Montgomery v. Ward151 So. 583 (Ala. 1933)
  2. Galliland v. Williams61 So. 291 (Ala. 1913)
  3. The Livingstone104 F. 918 (W.D.N.Y. 1900)
  4. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Hart76 F. 673 (8th Cir. 1896)
  5. State v. Wilson9 S.W. 155 (Tex. 1888)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list