# Respondents Opposing Brief — Goggin v. Division of Labor Law Enforcement of Cal.

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386406_0098%3A3

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Respondents Opposing Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 1949
- **Citation:** 336 U.S. 118

## Text

& .

9 @-> LIBRARY
ae ‘Sungeue GOURT. U.S.

ge. IN THE

| Supreme Court of te United

" Ocsmmus TERM 4947.

ah Non is

_ _B. On page, f0 of Petitioner's Pétition it is stated that
_, the decision of the Circuit Court 0% Appedls for the Ninth
. Circuit is in conflict with the decision rendered in the ~
Sixth Circuit in the petition of International Hariester
Co. of America (C. C. A. 6th), 9 F. (2d)- 200, _ There
is'no such conflict and the cases -are clearly distinguish:

able.

Oo

In. the International Harvester case the issue was

whether the chattel mortgagee had possession prior to and,

at the time of bankruptcy, since the existence of the lien
- depended on possession. [In the instant case existence
of the lien does not depend on possession, and it-has never
been contended by Respondent that the lien fell following
surrender of possession by the C ollector of Internal

Revenue to the Receiver. - Respondent urged helow that™

‘surrender of possession merely, withdrew from. the lien

elaim its: suprior position over prior wage claims. The“

‘Court below ipheld this contention, stating: — S

“In the instant cage the government had actual
possession, but it. surrendered ‘that possession by
virtue of a‘ bargain with the receiver without taking

- into account the wage and creditor claimants. The
“Act provides that wage claims come ahead of the
governrient, lien in distribution of the proceeds of

: sale of. property not in ponecesion of the government
tien holder.’ “J

Further, the general qugstion a surrender of possession :

was ‘not decided in the / ternational Harvester case. The
Court states: , cee *

“Therefore. notwithstanding our concurrence ..
the construction of the statute the petition to revise

is granted; and the cause’ “remanded, to permit the
parties to amend the pleadings, and thereupon to
deterniine whether or not, in the circumstances, peti-
tioner obtained a valid lien by virtue of its possession
‘prior to and at the time of filing the petition in bank

ruptey (see Peter Schultler Co. v.. Gunther; 222 :

Mich. 430, 192 N. W. 661, 49 Am, Bank Rep.

, 678), and. if se, whether or not it waived! this lien
by reason of the surrender of ‘the actual possession
, to the receiver.’

Actually ‘the decision of the United States Circuit Court

.of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is: in accord w ith. all
decisions of .the United States. ‘Circuit Court of Appeals
rendered i in other Circuits. Judge Stephens ‘in lis opinion F
cites and_agreés with the decision of ‘the Second ‘Circuit
——tendered in the case of City of New York.v. Hall, (C. C.
A. “(2d). 1944), 139 F. (24) 935. The decision follows -

the enunciation of principle laid ‘down by the Third Cir- :

cuit in the case of Jn re Pennsylvania C entral Brewery

ix -

Conclusion. neo a
We respectfully urge that the petition filed eel for

a writ of certiorari to the ‘United States Circuit Court of
— for the ‘Ninth. Circuit be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

Frep N. ‘Howsér,- as ie
Attorney General of the State of C alifornia,

Frank W. HARDS, | a

- Deputy Soica Alas General. of the State of

| . Salifornia, -

©

A Honeys for Respondent.
PAULINE Nigutincare. and.
EDWARD M: ‘BELASco,

Fe

>
“eS

Te
Aiivnsige of Division of . Labor Lew?
oe Enforcement, Department of Industrial
= Relations, State of Lakfornia,
. Of Counsel. : °
ae - 5%
Cie ate
= : \
ix
aera

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386406_0098%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.