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.
It found it unnecessary to consider whether a creditor or bona fide purchaser could have obtained rights in the $150,000, prior to the endorsement and mailing of the government check on November 27, since it thought that the "delivery of the moneys to the assignee was complete" at that time.
The court also recognized that in this respect state law controlled decision. For "Even where the state of the forum adopts and applies as its own the law of the state where the injury was inflicted, the extent to which it shall apply in its own courts a rule of law of another state is itself a question of local law of the forum." See Magnolia Petroleum Co.
E.2d 192, holding that the transfer was not made within four months of bankruptcy.
And hence § 60a's "apparent command is to test the effectiveness of a transfer, as against the trustee, by the standards which applicable state law would enforce against a good faith purchaser." Corn Exchange Bank v.
That question is whether a check, made payable to the bankrupt and endorsed and mailed by it to respondent more than four months before bankruptcy, but received by respondent and credited upon the bankrupt's antecedent debt within the four months, is, by the applicable law, a transfer within the four months period, within the meaning of § 60a. § 203, declares that the assignment of any claim upon the Government shall be "absolutely null and void" unless made after the allowance of the claim and the issue of a warrant for its payment.
We granted certiorari on a petition raising questions important to the administration of the Bankruptcy Act, only one of which we find it necessary to decide. Section 1 (30) of the Bankruptcy Act declares that "`transfer' shall include the sale and every other .
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.