Tags: Critical Thinking Activities For Middle SchoolersEssays About Sports MeetEssay On Of Mice And Men DreamsBusiness Plan PaperSound ResynthesisGirls Education EssayMacbeth Essay On SupernaturalApplication Essay EditingEssay On Yom KipperEssay Of Healthy Life
Under the federal rule, a subsequent assignee is entitled to retain assigned moneys which it receives without notice of a prior assignment. The provisions of the statute governing assignments of claims against the Government are for the protection of the Government and not for the regulation of the equities of the claimants as between themselves. E.2d 192, holding that the transfer was not made within four months of bankruptcy.
It seems clear that at least from that time the transfer was perfected. It does not appear that the surety has made any such claim.
whether a purchaser for value or a creditor could have obtained any rights in the moneys until they were paid to the contractor and the check mailed to the [respondent] on November 27th. National Surety Co., supra, argues that as a matter of federal law the surety company, which is a creditor, has rights to the proceeds of the government contract, superior to those of respondent, and sufficient to require respondent to relinquish the payment made to it.
or with the possession thereof." When the debtor endorsed the government check and placed it in the mails, he parted with the possession and intended to part with the property in it, at a time (before the four months' period) when the transfer of the property to respondent would not be an unlawful preference. It did not receive the proceeds of the contract here in question.
The surety did not perfect its assignment by giving the notices and procuring the consent required by the statute.
[From] the time that the check was deposited in the mail . ., delivery of the moneys to the assignee was complete." Petitioner, relying on Martin v.
The Court of Federal Claims rejected Applied's challenge to the government's setoff. Applied sought review of the government's actions in the Court of Federal Claims, arguing that the setoff violated the terms of the settlement agreement on Contract No. The Court of Federal Claims rejected each of Applied's arguments and granted summary judgment in favor of the government. § 15, barred the government from taking a setoff against the funds in the termination settlement agreement.
The affidavits submitted on the motion for summary judgment do not frame any such issue, and we are not pointed to any allegation in them that any amount is due and owing from the bankrupt to the surety. These facts, which were sufficient in that case to require that the subsequent assignee relinquish the transferred funds, are lacking here.
The surety, whose claim, if it has one, is adverse and superior to that of petitioner and the other creditors, is not a party to this suit. The Martin case does not control here, since the subsequent assignee in that case took with notice of an earlier assignment and as part of an obviously fraudulent scheme.
The purpose of the Assignment of Claims Act of October 9, 1940, 54 Stat.
1029, is the protection of the Government and not the regulation of equities of claimants as between themselves.