his laborers and materialmen, would have become entitled to the fund; and that the surety, having paid the laborers and material-men, is entitled to the benefit of all these rights to the extent necessary to reimburse it. Id. at 141, 83 S.Ct. 232. In recognition of the surety’s right to the funds, the Court awarded those funds directly to the surety, bypassing the bankruptcy estate. Id. at 141-42, 83 S.Ct. 232. The right of a surety like that in Pearlman — who has fully paid all subcontractors — to retained funds is greater than that of an unpaid subcontractor, like OTS, because the surety combines the subcontractor’s interest in the funds with those of the Government and the general contractor. See id. at r of Bruns Coal Co., Inc.), 9 Ohio Misc. 61, 362 F.2d 486, 491 (4th Cir.1966) (<HOLDING>). Some of these cases, however, do involve an
holding that sureties that had paid materialmen of bankrupt contractor had no subrogation rights to any funds in excess of amounts paid to material men holding that appellants had no standing to challenge search of car because they had no ownership or possessory rights of any kind in the car holding the general rule is that money paid to another under a mistake of fact may be recovered because the money belongs in equity and good conscience to the person who paid it recognizing in both cases that its subrogation rights were ineffectual because the lender had not preserved its rights to a deficiency judgment against the veteran holding that subrogation rights are not security interests under ucc article 9