Butler v. Cantley

47 S.W.2d 258, 226 Mo. App. 1047, 1932 Mo. App. LEXIS 56
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedMarch 7, 1932
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 47 S.W.2d 258 (Butler v. Cantley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Butler v. Cantley, 47 S.W.2d 258, 226 Mo. App. 1047, 1932 Mo. App. LEXIS 56 (Mo. Ct. App. 1932).

Opinion

BAILEY, J.

This is a suit tax by the administrator of the estate of Albert J. Ramsey, deceased, to have certain funds deposited by him in the defunct Doniphan State Bank, derived from the proceeds of War Risk Insurance, declared to be preferred. The claim was duly filed before S. L. Cantley, Commissioner of Finance in charge of said bank. The following is an agreed statement of facts: ‘ ‘ Chas. B. Butler is the duly appointed, qualified and acting administrator of the estate of Albert J. Ramsey, deceased, under and by virtue of the appointment made by the probate court of Ripley county, Mis *1049 souri, and was such on the 21st day of November, A. D. 1930, and had been for sometime prior thereto; that as such administrator of the estate of Albert J. Ramsey, deceased, he had in his possession, under his control and custody the sum of $5330.30, which money was received by him as such administrator from the War Risk Insurance Department of the United States Treasury through the U). S. Veteran’s Bureau; that said sum of $5330.30 was the amount received by such administrator as the proceeds of an insurance policy held by Albert J. Ramsey, his mother being the beneficiary in said policy; that his mother died'before the distribution of said money was made and that the brothers and sisters of the said Albert J. Ramsey are now the beneficiaries of said policy under the law. That such sum of money was deposited in the Doniphan State 'Bank of Doniphan, Missouri, at the date of its closing, to-wit, November 21, 1930, and that thereafterwards, within the four months time specified in the notice to creditors of the Doniphan State Bank, between the dates of December 24, 1930, and April 24, 1931, the claimant, Chas. B. Butler filed proof of his claim against the Doniphan State Bank with the Bank of Doniphan, Special Deputy Commissioner of Finance, in charge of the liquidation of■ the Doniphan State Bank; that claimant in his claim set up and urged that it be approved and allowed as a preferred claim; that the claim was duly allowed by the Special Deputy Commissioner of Finance in charge as a general or common claim only, and refused and denied by it as a preferred claim, but certified it to the circuit court of Ripley county, Missouri, as a claim to be approved and allowed by the circuit court of Ripley county, Missouri, as a general or common claim in the sum of $5330.30. That a copy of said claim is hereto attached and marked as ‘Exhibit A.’

‘ ‘ That at the date of the closing of the said Doniphan State Bank, to-wit, November 21, 1930, it had on hand in cash in its vaults or due from other bank on demand funds amounting to more than the amount of this claim, $5330.30.”

Plaintiff also offered evidence that at the time he deposited said money in the Doniphan State Bank he informed Mr. Wright, agent of the surety company which paid him the money and the man who wrote the bond of the administrator and who was at the same time cashier of said bank, that the money was obtained from War Risk Insurance payable to the estate of Albert J. Ramsey and that, “when I deposited it as administrator of his estate I told Mr. Wright it was a trust fund and it was deposited in my name as administrator, etc, ’ ’ Mr. Wright admitted also that he knew, as cashier, that this administrator’s account consisted of funds derived from the government to be paid out to the heirs of Albert J. Ramsey, deceased.

*1050 The claim was allowed as a common or ordinary claim by the finance commissioner, who thereafter certified same to the circuit court. The latter court, after hearing the evidence, likewise allowed the claim as a common or ordinary claim and disallowed it as a preferred claim. Plaintiff has appealed from that judgment.

It is conceded on both sides that if the funds deposited by the administrator were monies belonging to the government of the United States of America, within the meaning’ of section 3466 U. S. S. L., such funds are entitled to a preference and must be first satisfied. That statute reads as follows: “Section 3466.' (Priority of debts due United States established.) Whenever any person indebted to the United States is insolvent, or whenever the estate of any deceased debtor, in the hands of the executors or administrators, is insufficient to pay all the debts due from the deceased, the debts due to the United States shall be first satisfied; and the. priority hereby established shall extend as well to cases in which a debtor, not having sufficient property to pay all his debts, makes a voluntary assignment thereof, or in which the estate and effects of an absconding, concealed, or absent debtor are attached by process of law, as to cases in which-an act of bankruptcy is committed. [R. S.] ”

The money here received by the administrator and deposited by him in the Doniphan State ¡Bank was payable to the estate of the deceased soldier of the world war under and by virtue of the terms of the War Risk Insurance Act, which as last amended, in part, reads as follows: “If no person within the permitted class be designated as beneficiary for yearly renewable term insurance by the insured either in his lifetime or by his last will and testament or if the designated beneficiary does not survive the insured, or survives the insured and dies prior to receiving all of the two hundred and forty installments or all such as are payable and applicable, there shall be paid to the estate of the insured the present value of the monthly installments thereafter payable, said value to be computed as of date of last payment‘made under any existing award.” — “Provided further, That in eases when the estate of an insured would escheat under the laws of the place of his residence the insurance shall not be paid to the estate but shall escheat to the United States and be credited to the military and naval insurance appropriation. This section shall be deemed to be in effect as of October 6, 1917.” [Pp. 227-228, 1925, Sup. U. S. S., 38 U. S. C. A., p. 252, Art. 514.]

There is a similar provision for other insurance plans. In order to properly construe the foregoing sections of the Federal Statutes the purpose of the original War Risk Insurance Act, as expressed in the act itself, is of great importance. That purpose is, “to give to every commissioned officer and enlisted man — when employed in ac *1051 tive service under the War Department or Navy Department protection for themselves and their dependents.” [43 Stat. L. 624.] It is further provided that the insurance shall be payable only to a, “spouse, child, grandchild, parent,'brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, brother-in-law or sister-in-law.” [43 Stat. L. 624.] In order to further protect the rights thus secured to the permitted class the statute contains the further provision that, “The compensation, insurance, and maintenance and support allowance payable under Parts, I, II, III, IV, respectively, shall not be assignable; shall not be subject to the claims of creditors of any person to. whom cm award is made under parts II, III or IV; and shall be exempt from all taxation.” [Italics ours.]

Considering all these various provisions of the law, it is apparent that the Congress of the United States gave of its bounty in order to provide insurance for a class of its citizens, namely, soldiers serving in defense of their country, who might otherwise be unable to provide for their families and dependents.

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

Related

Hines v. American Surety Co.
168 S.W.2d 96 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1943)
In Re Keisker's Estate
168 S.W.2d 96 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1943)
In re the Estate of McCormick
169 Misc. 672 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1938)
McGuire v. McGeisey
179 Okla. 251 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1936)
In Re Coleman's Estate
1936 OK 812 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1936)
State Ex Rel. Lankford v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.
74 S.W.2d 904 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1934)
Reichert v. Berlin State Bank
251 N.W. 340 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1933)
Hurley v. Hirsch
66 S.W.2d 387 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1933)
Spicer v. Smith
288 U.S. 430 (Supreme Court, 1933)
State Ex Rel. Robertson v. Bank of Bristol
55 S.W.2d 771 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1933)
Nelson v. John B. Colegrove & Co. State Bank
267 Ill. App. 317 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1932)
Hunt v. Slagle
165 S.E. 287 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1932)
Anderson v. Olivia State Bank
243 N.W. 398 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1932)
Smith, Special Dp. Bank. Com. v. Spicer's Gdn. and Com.
50 S.W.2d 64 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
47 S.W.2d 258, 226 Mo. App. 1047, 1932 Mo. App. LEXIS 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/butler-v-cantley-moctapp-1932.