8

pay envelopes the weeks to which their contents applied, this was held notice to the employees that the payments were for current wages and did not apply on account of back wages. Re Jacob Y. Shantz & Son Co., 205 Fed. 405. The priority is not lost by reducing the claims of judgment, Re Haskell, 128 Fed. 819. Book accounts for supplies furnished by the bankrupt to the laborers do not cancel, in whole or in part, any liens of the mechanics who Owe them. A statement in the proof that the claim is for "". 'wages due deponent as clerk and manager and is a preferred claim," is insufficient when it is not shown that the wages were earned within the three months. Re Dunn, 181 Fed. 701. Where the stockholders consented that part of their wages should be withheld and loaned to the association they thereby lost their priority, Re Caledonia Coal Co., 254 Fed. 742; that a salesman was not allowed priority for a part of his salary, retained by agreement as a fund, to be used later for his benefit, Re Flick, 105 Fed. 503; but he was given it, entitled to a priority for his commissions within the time. Re Dexter, 158 Fed. 788; Re Fink, 163 Fed. 135. A State statute giving a preference to wages, earned more than three months before insolvency, was not followed, Re Rouse, Hazard & Co., C. C. A., 91 Fed. 96; Re Caledonia Coal Co., 254 Fed. 742. A State statute granting a lien for services was held not to permit a priority for more than

$300, Re Crawford Woolen Co., 218 Fed. 951. As to the Kentucky statute, see Central Trust Co. v. George Leuders & Co., C. C. A., 219 Fed. 830; but, when the State statute gave a lien to certain claims for wages within the prescribed time, provided they were filed in a specified office, the the filed claims were paid in priority to those of the same class not filed, Re Rouse, 91 Fed. 514; Re Kerby-Dennis Co., C. C. A., 95 Fed. 116; Re Byrne, 97 Fed. 762. As to the California statute see Blessing v. Blanchard, C. C. A., 223 Fed. 35. As to Kentucky statute, see Re Floyd & Bohr Co., 200 Fed. 1016; Central Trust v. Geo. Leuders & Co., C. C. A., 221 Fed. 829; as to the Michigan statute see, Re Caledonia Coal Co., 254 Fed. 742; as to the Mississippi statute, see Re Monroe Lumber Co., 186 Fed. 25; as to the Washington statute see, Keyes v. Davie, C. C. A., 231 Fed. 688.

830 St. at L. 544, 563, § 64, as amended by 32 St. at L. 797, and by 34 St. at L. 267; Re Iroquois Mach. Co., 166 Fed. 629; Re Amoratis, C. C. A., 178 Fed. 919; Johnson v. Garner, 233 Fed. 756; Re McAusland, 235 Fed. 173; Re Rosett, 203 Fed. 67. The word State, includes Porto Rico, Re Vidal, C. C. A., 233 Fed. 733. This does not preserve the remedies for the enforcement of the lien contained in the State statute. Re Hasie, 206 Fed. 789. In Minnesota, the State is entitled to such priority for all indebtedness due to it. Re Western Implement Co., 166 Fed. 577. In Alabama, not;

State of Alabama v. Martin, 256 Fed. 313. Statutory provisions giving the State a priority in the distribution of the assets of a decedent do not give the State a priority in bankruptcy. Re Devlin, 180 Fed. 170. For landlord's liens, Re Southern Hardware & Supply Co., 210 Fed. 381; Re Quality Shoe Shop, Inc., 212 Fed. 321; Ludlow v. Pugh, C. C. A., 213 Fed. 450; Re Bell Engraving Co., 214 Fed. 510; Re Federal Biscuit Co., C. C. A., 218 Fed. 753; Re Simon Hotel Co., 223 Fed. 664; Re GrovensteinBishop Co., 223 Fed. 879; Re City Drug Store, 224 Fed. 133; Re Place, 244 Fed. 778; Re W. R. Kuhn Co., C. C. A., 225 Fed. 13; Re Mock, 228 Fed. 94; Re Mt. Winans Lumber Co., 228 Fed. 831; Re SpiesAlper Co., 231 Fed. 535; Southern Ry. Co. v. Wilder, C. C. A., 231 Fed. 933; Re All Star Feature Corp., 233 Fed. 1004; Re Hosmer, 233 Fed. 318; Preetorius v. Anderson, 236 Fed. 723; Re Gerrow, 233 Fed. 845; Fudickar v. Glenn, C. C. A., 233 Fed. 808; Re Woulfe & Co., 239 Fed. 128; Re Mossler Co., C. C. A., 239 Fed. 262; Bird v. City of Richmond, C. C. A., 240 Fed. 545; Re Cole Jewelry Co., 243 Fed. 790; Bank of Ragland v. Hudson, C. C. A., 247 Fed. 241; Re Delaney, 251 Fed. 425; Re Chambers, 254 Fed. 506; Re West, 253 Fed. 963.

For vendor's liens, see Cullen v. Armstrong, 209 Fed. 704; Re Lane Lumber Co., C. C. A., 217 Fed. 550; Taylor v. Kimmerle, C. C. A., 232 Fed. 134; Re French, 231 Fed. 257, 258; Farrell v. Wysong, C. C. A., 246 Fed. 281.

For mechanics' liens, see Hobbs v. Head and Dowst Company, 231 U. S. 693, N. H.; Louisville Woolen Mills v. Johnson, C. C. A., 228 Fed. 606, Ky.; McGraw v. Walsh, C. C. A., 232 Fed. 122, W. Va., Kemp Lumber Co. v. Howard, C. C. A., 237 Fed. 574, N. M.; Bank of Follansbee V. Follansbee Lumber Co., C. C. A., 248 Fed. 645, Ky.; Fels v. Geo. Lueders & Co., C. C. A., 246 Fed. 436; Whitney Central Trust & Savings Bank v. United States Construction Co., C. C. A., 250 Fed. 784, La.; Re Dubosky, 253 Fed. 794; C. C. Hartwell Co. v. Miller, C. C. A., 256 Fed. 273; Danville Ben. & Bldg. Ass'n V. Huff, C. C. A., 262 Fed. 403, Ill.; Gates & Co. v. Stevens Construction Co., 220 N. Y. 38.

For pledges, see Dale v. Pattison, 234 U. S. 399, Ohio; Re Dreuil & Co., 205 Fed. 573, La.; Cullen v. Armstrong, 209 Fed. 704, Md.; Davis V. Hanover Savings Fund Society, 210 Fed. 768, W. Va.; Re Harvey, 212 Fed. 340, Ala.; Re Cross, 244 Fed. 844, N. Y.; Re H. B. Hollins & Co., 230 Fed. 917, N. Y.; Worth v. Marshall Field & Co., 240 Fed. 395; Re P. J. Sullivan Co., 247 Fed. 139; Re Germantown Almegum Mfg. Co., 257 Fed. 755.

For bankers' liens, see National City Bank v. Hotchkiss, 231 U. S. 50; Ward v. First Nat. Bank C. C. A., 202 Fed. 609; Vaughan v. Massachusetts Hide Corporation, 209 Fed. 667; Re Hollins, C. C. A., 215 Fed. 41; Sterne v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, C. C. A., 216 Fed. 862; Dodge v. Harris, C. C. A., 224 Fed. 434; Re Richheimer, C. C. A., 221

Fed. 16; Re K. Marks & Co., C. C. A., 222 Fed. 52; Brown Bros. Co. v. Smith Bros. Co., 231 Fed. 475; Ward v. Am. Agri. Chem. Co., C. C. A., 232 Fed. 119; Citizens' Trust Co. v. Mullinix, C. C. A., 235 Fed. 875 (no lien); Dalton V. Humphreys, C. C. A., 242 Fed. 777; Re H. & L. Jarmulowsky, 243 Fed. 632.

For warehouse receipts, see: Taney v. Penn Bank, 232 U. S. 174; Commercial Nat. Bank V. Canal-Louisiana Bank & Tr. Co., 239 U. S. 520; Merchants' Nat. Bank of Baltimore v. Corr, C. C. A., 221 Fed. 419; Interstate Banking & Tr. Co. v. Brown, C. C. A., 235 Fed. 32; First Nat. Bank v. Yerkes, C. C. A., 238 Fed. 278; Re P. J. Sullivan Co., 247 Fed. 139; Re Germantown Mfg. Co., 251 Fed. 755.

Almegum

An attorney's lien upon a cause of action, when given by a State statute, has been enforced by refusing the trustee permission to discontinue the same without satisfying the attorney's claim. Re Adamo, 151 Fed. 716. Under the New York statute, an attorney was given a lien as employee, Gay v. Hudson River El. Power Co., 178 Fed. 499. See supra, § 422a. Partnership creditors have a lien upon partnership property and a right to payment out of the same prior to that of individual creditors of the partnership. B'k'cy Act, $5, supra, § 618. Re Linforth, 87 Fed. 386; Re Mills, 95 Fed. 269; Re Jones, 100 Fed. 781; Re Hull, 224 Fed. 796; Re Cobb's Consol. Cos., 233 Fed. 458; aff'd, C. C. A., 238 Fed. 543; Re Evans, 235 Fed. 635; Fed. Prac. Vol. III-82

Re Nashville Laundry Co., 240 Fed. 795; Stringer v. Stevenson, C. C. A., 240 Fed. 892; Re W. S. Kuhn & Co., 241 Fed. 935; but see Re Gartman, 242 Fed. 595; and supra, § 644.

Upon the insolvency of a member of the firm his personal creditors have a right to be paid out of his individual estate before the application of any of his individual assets to the payment of partnership debts. Ibid. Farmers' & Mechanics' Nat. Bank v. Ridge Avenue Bank, 240 U. S. 492. The fact that the partnership has no assets does not change this rule, Re Henderson, 142 Fed. 588. See $ 618, supra. It has been held that the question whether a claimant is entitled to priority of payment, on the ground that the trustee has received money held in trust for the former by the bankrupt, is not a question to be determined by the priorities under the State insolvency law. Smith V. Mottley, C. C. A., 150 Fed. 266. For cases where it was held there was no such priority, see Block v. Rice, 167 Fed. 693; Clarke V. Rogers, C. C. A., 183 Fed. 518; Re Dorr, C. C. A., 196 Fed. 292. In the following cases it was held that it could not be thus traced: Schuyler v. Littlefield, 232 U. S. 707; Knauth, Nachod & Kuhne v. Latham & Co., 242 U. S. 426; affirming Knauth, Nachod & Kuhne v. Lovell, 212 Fed. 337; Re Yungbluth, 209 Fed. 116; Macy v. Roedenbeck, C. C. A., 227 Fed. 346; Titlow v. McCormick, C. C. A., 236 Fed. 209; Wuerpel v. Commercial Germania Trust & Savings Bank, C. C. A.,

12 Ibid.

13 Re Crafts-Riordon Shoe Co., 185 Fed. 931. Supra, § 644. The rights of the attaching creditor are governed by the State law as declared by the highest court of the State. Loewe v. Savings Bank of Danbury, C. C. A., 236 Fed. 444. 14 Re Bros, C. C. A., 254 Fed. 664.

15 Bean v. Orr, C. C. A., 182 Fed. 599; Re Hasie, 206 Fed. 789; Re Jarmulowsky, 224 Fed. 141. Where the mortgage provides for insurance, the mortgagee has a preference for insurance premiums which he has paid. Re Fabacher, 193 Fed. 556. For attorney's fees of mortgagees, see § 647, supra; for preference as to interest, § 652, infra.

16 Thompson v. Fairbanks, 196 U. S. 516, 49 L. ed. 577. For cases where such instruments have been sustained or set aside, see § 644, supra.

17 Bryant v. Swofford Bros. Dry Good Co., 214 U. S. 279, L. ed. 997. For cases where such instruments have been sustained or set aside, see § 649a infra.

18 See § 644, supra.

19 Shropshire, Woodliff & Co. v. Bush, 204 U. S. 186, 51 L. ed. 436; Re Bennett, C. C. A., 153 Fed. 673. Cashing at the bankrupt's request checks given by him to his workmen for wages was held to

989.

create a right to priority as assignee of the latter's claims although presentation of the checks for payment had been delayed a few days at the employer's request. Re Shult Bros., 226 Fed. But under the circumstances of several cases those who had honored store orders given by the bankrupt in payment of wages were not allowed a priority. Re Long Leaf Lumber Co., C. C. A., 219 Fed. 675; Re McGowin Lumber Co., 223 Fed. 553; J. C. Stewart & Co. v. McLeod, C. C. A., 222 Fed. 253. For a case where the enforcement of such assignments were enjoined as collusive and fraudulent, see Re Kyte, 182 Fed. 166. It has been held that an assignment of wages to be earned in the future, made as security for a debt, creates no lien until they have been earned; and that where, prior to that time, the debtor is adjudged a bankrupt, the debt is extinguished upon his subsequent discharge, and the wages become the bankrupt's property; and that pending proceedings for a discharge, the assignee may be enjoined from collecting or receiving the same. Re Lineberry, 183 Fed. 338. Re Green, 213 Fed. 542; Re Wodzicki, 238 Fed. 571. See Cohen v. Bacharach, C. C. A., 229 Fed. 385. Where the bankrupt had without consideration when insol