over the lien of a landlord, a tax lien, and statutory liens.
The holding of In re Quaker City Uniform Co., 3 Cir., 1956, 238 F.2d 155, that the lien of a chattel mortgagee, inferior under state law to the landlord's lien, should by necessary implication be postponed by § 67, sub. c to a position behind the subordinated lien of a landlord who has distrained, is not applicable here, because there is no 'lien * * * of distress for rent.'
Since the landlord has not distrained, his claim is an unsecured claim, entitled to priority under § 64, sub. a(5),
and his claim does not achieve the status of a lien subordinated by § 67, sub. c. His claim is, also, subordinated to the federal tax lien, Miners Sav. Bank of Pittston, Pa. v. Joyce, 3 Cir., 1938, 97 F.2d 973, 978, and to debts given priority by the first four clauses of § 64. In re Lebed, D.C.E.D.Pa.1941, 39 F.Supp. 457.
Since Congress has not postponed to administrative expenses all of the liens that are valid under state law, and since the security liens of the chattel mortgagee and the conditional sales vendor are not postponed by § 67, sub. c,
there is here no problem of upsetting state lien priority such as that present in the Quaker City case, supra, as there is no subordinated superior state lien.
Thus, the Congressional intent in § 67, sub. c, to favor administrative expenses and wage claims does not contemplate the postponement of the secured interests
present in this case, and the order of payment will be: (1) the chattel mortgagee and the conditional sales vendor;
(2) administration expenses; (3) the federal tax lien; (4) other unsecured tax claims (which receive priority under § 64, sub. a(4)); and (5) the landlord's priority under § 64, sub. a(5).
The referee's order of distribution is modified to accord with the above opinion and order of payment.