Shertzer v. Williams

168 So. 573, 232 Ala. 558, 1936 Ala. LEXIS 270
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedApril 30, 1936
Docket5 Div. 218.
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 168 So. 573 (Shertzer v. Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Shertzer v. Williams, 168 So. 573, 232 Ala. 558, 1936 Ala. LEXIS 270 (Ala. 1936).

Opinion

KNIGHT, Justice.

Petition by appellant, filed in the circuit court of Macon county, which had assumed jurisdiction over the trust, estate, to require appellee, as superintendent of banks, liquidating the Macon County Bank, to pay to petitioner, as the trustee in bankruptcy of W. L. Shepherd Lumber Company, a dividend of 12% per cent, on an aggregate sum of $13,067.54 instead of the reduced sum of $8,151.41.

It appears from the petition and the agreed statement of facts, upon which the cause was heard, that the Macon County Bank closed its doors, and was placed in the hands of the state superintendent of banks for liquidation, on May 6, 1931, and that the affairs of said bank have since been in course of liquidation by such officer.

It also appears that at the time the bank closed its doors there was on deposit to the credit of petitioner the sum of $13,-067.54.

It appears also from the petition and agreed statement of facts that the Macon County Bank, by an order of the United States District Court, had been designated as a depository for the funds belonging to the bankrupt estates of W. L. Shepherd Lumber Company and J. B. Cofield. On deposit, at the time the said bank closed its doors, there was to the credit of the trustee of the latter estate the sum of $222.94.

In order to qualify as such depository, the Macon County Bank was required to execute bond in the sum of $5,000, with sufficient surety to be approved by the judge of the District Court of the United States for the Northern Division of the Middle District of Alabama. On July 22, 1930, the said bank made the required bond, with the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company as surety.

In order to induce the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company to become the surety on said bond; the Macon County Bank entered into a written agreement with the said surety to hold it harmless upon the undertaking, and to that end deposited with the First National Bank of Birmingham, Ala., certain of the bank’s assets, to wit, five county of Conecuh five and one-half school warrants, in the sum of $1,000 each, and which were to be held by said First National Bank of Birmingham, Ala., for the protection of. the said named surety. The last named bank was authorized upon certain contingencies to sell the said bonds and to apply the proceeds “to reimburse the party of the sec *560 ond part (United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company) for all loss sustained and all payments made by it in the discharge of its legal .obligation under the aforesaid bond for the full amount of the bond or other securities held in escrow under this agreement.”

It further appears that, upon the default of the Macon County Bank, the First National Bank of Birmingham, Ala., sold the five Conecuh county school warrants, obtaining therefor the aggregate sum of $4,011.40, and this money • was paid to the said United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company on August 22, 1931. This payment was made to the surety company prior to the filing of the petition in this cause. Thereafter the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company paid to the petitioner, as trustee of the W. L. Shepherd Lumber Company, the sum of $4,916.13, “that being the amount of the guaranty company’s liability to appellant on the bond, ascertained by taking the proportion that appellant’s deposit in the bank when it closed bore to the whole deposit of the bankruptcy funds in the bank at the time.”

It appears that the appellant had no “information, knowledge or notice” of the indemnity agreement made by the Macon County Bank with the guaranty company, or of the deposit of the securities, or of the sale of the securities and the payment of the proceeds to the guaranty company. Appellant knew nothing of said transaction.

Upon the payment, on September 25, 1931, to the trustee of the said sum of $4,916.13 by the said United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, the said trustee and M. S. Carmichael, as referee in bankruptcy, executed to the said surety company a release and discharge from any further or additional liability to the said L. L. Shertzer, as trustee of W. L. Shepherd Lumber Company, and to said bankrupt’s estate on account of said depository bond.

This release contained the following further stipulation:

“And the undersigned L. L. Shertzer, as trustee as aforesaid and pursuant to said order of said referee in bankruptcy, does hereby agree and stipulate that when the undersigned L. L. Shertzer, as trustee as aforesaid, has received on his claim as-trustee of said bankrupt estate against said Macon County Bank a sum of money which in addition to said sum of $4,916.-13, hereby acknowledged, aggregates the full amount of his claim as trustee of said estate against said Macon County Bank and the interest thereon, then said United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company will be entitled to any balance remaining unpaid on said claim against said bank, and shall then be subrogated to all rights of the said undersigned L. L. Shert-zer as trustee of said estate, and said estate, against said bank, for any balance then remaining on said claim.
“Witness our hands, this the day of September, 1931.
“M. S. Carmichael,
“Referee in Bankruptcy.
“L. L. Shertzer
“As Trustee in Bankruptcy of W. L. Shepherd Lumber Company, Bankrupt.”

It is to be noted that of the $4,916.13 paid to the said trustee, appellant here, the sum of $3,944.11 (apportioned to this account out of the $4,011.44) was derived from the sale of the five Conecuh county school warrants sold by the First National Bank of Birmingham, Ala., and paid over to the guaranty company. In other words, all but $972.02 of the amount paid by the guaranty company to petitioner were, in fact, funds of the Macon County Bank, and used in liquidation of the latter’s indebtedness to the appellant.

Notwithstanding this fact, the appellant insisted in the court below, and renews the insistence here, that, on the distribution of the assets of the Macon County Bank, the dividend to be paid to appellant should be calculated on the amount due appellant by the insolvent bank as of the date of the closing of said bank.

This insistence is made in part upon the theory that the bond was made under the mandate of a federal statute and pursuant to an order of the federal District Court, and therefore, inasmuch as a federal statute or rights thereunder are involved, the rule of law applicable for the determination of such rights must be found in the decisions of the federal court, and the state courts are bound thereby.

We can agree fully with counsel for appellant that the interpretation of a federal statute by federal courts is binding on state courts (United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Benson Hardware Co., *561 222 Ala. 429, 132 So. 622), but we have no such case before us.

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

Related

Commercial Union Insurance Co. v. Postin
610 P.2d 984 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
168 So. 573, 232 Ala. 558, 1936 Ala. LEXIS 270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shertzer-v-williams-ala-1936.