Bonjour, Gough & Stone v. Pacific Employers Insurance

Ninth Circuit

Bonjour, Gough & Stone v. Pacific Employers Insurance

503 F.2d 618

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 27, 1974

DocketNo. 73-2447

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 503 F.2d 618 (Bonjour, Gough & Stone v. Pacific Employers Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bonjour, Gough & Stone v. Pacific Employers Insurance, 503 F.2d 618 (9th Cir. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

Before KOELSCH and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges, and McGOVERN,

* District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

The only question involved in this appeal¹ is whether the trustees are empowered by Section 70(c) of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. § 110(c), to require the surety to pay into the bankruptcy estate the penal sums on the contractors’ licensing bonds. The answer is clearly “no”.

The reasoning of Betzer v. Olney, 14 Cal.App.2d 53, 57 P.2d 1376 (1936), the only case directly in point, is persuasive, and we follow it. (See In re Goldsby, 51 F.Supp. 849 (S.D.Fla.1943)). None of the many changes in what is presently § 70(c) have diminished the soundness of the conclusion there reached — that the trustee may not compel payment of the penal sums to him because the bonds are not property of the bankrupt. The bankrupt contractors here, as required by the California Business and Professions Code §§ 7071.6 and 7071.9, secured licensing bonds as a precondition to securing contractor’s licenses. Under § 7071.5, those bonds are essentially third-party beneficiary contracts, the penal sum protecting certain specified classes of people who are harmed in specified ways in dealing with the contractor. The contractor is never entitled to the penal sum — he never has a property interest in the bonds. Section 70(c) gives the trustee the position and rights of an ideal creditor over property of the bankrupt, but it does not “authorize a trustee to distribute other people’s property among a bankrupt’s creditors.” Pearlman v. Reliance Ins. Co., 371 U.S. 132, 135-136, 83 S.Ct. 232, 234, 9 L.Ed. 2d 190 (1962). See Prairie State Bank v. United States, 164 U.S. 227, 17 S.Ct. 142, 41 L.Ed. 412 (1896); United States v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Highways, 349 F.Supp. 1370 (E.D.Pa.1972).

The judgment is affirmed.

The Honorable Walter T. McGovern, United States District Judge for the Western District of AA'ashington, sitting by designation.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

Before KOELSCH and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges, and McGOVERN,

* District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

The only question involved in this appeal¹ is whether the trustees are empowered by Section 70(c) of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. § 110(c), to require the surety to pay into the bankruptcy estate the penal sums on the contractors’ licensing bonds. The answer is clearly “no”.

The reasoning of Betzer v. Olney, 14 Cal.App.2d 53, 57 P.2d 1376 (1936), the only case directly in point, is persuasive, and we follow it. (See In re Goldsby, 51 F.Supp. 849 (S.D.Fla.1943)). None of the many changes in what is presently § 70(c) have diminished the soundness of the conclusion there reached — that the trustee may not compel payment of the penal sums to him because the bonds are not property of the bankrupt. The bankrupt contractors here, as required by the California Business and Professions Code §§ 7071.6 and 7071.9, secured licensing bonds as a precondition to securing contractor’s licenses. Under § 7071.5, those bonds are essentially third-party beneficiary contracts, the penal sum protecting certain specified classes of people who are harmed in specified ways in dealing with the contractor. The contractor is never entitled to the penal sum — he never has a property interest in the bonds. Section 70(c) gives the trustee the position and rights of an ideal creditor over property of the bankrupt, but it does not “authorize a trustee to distribute other people’s property among a bankrupt’s creditors.” Pearlman v. Reliance Ins. Co., 371 U.S. 132, 135-136, 83 S.Ct. 232, 234, 9 L.Ed. 2d 190 (1962). See Prairie State Bank v. United States, 164 U.S. 227, 17 S.Ct. 142, 41 L.Ed. 412 (1896); United States v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Highways, 349 F.Supp. 1370 (E.D.Pa.1972).

The judgment is affirmed.

The Honorable Walter T. McGovern, United States District Judge for the Western District of AA'ashington, sitting by designation.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

503 F.2d 618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonjour-gough-stone-v-pacific-employers-insurance-ca9-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack