Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v. United States
Decision Date | 29 June 1938 |
Docket Number | No. 8706.,8706. |
Citation | 97 F.2d 879 |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Parties | MASSACHUSETTS BONDING & INS. CO. v. UNITED STATES. |
Joe Crider, Jr., and Clarence B. Runkle, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
James W. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Sewall Key, Norman D. Keller, and E. E. Angevine, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., and Ben Harrison, U. S. Atty., E. H. Mitchell, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Eugene Harpole, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, all of Los Angeles, Cal.
Before DENMAN, MATHEWS, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal by the Massachusetts Bonding and Insurance Company from a judgment against it in an action brought by the United States to enforce the defendant's liability on a surety bond. Principal on the bond was Harry H. Culver. The bond was given to secure the payment of a tax deficiency by Culver to the United States. It is admitted that Culver defaulted on the bond.
Appellant does not question entry of judgment against it for the face amount of the bond, plus interest at the legal rate on California judgments from date of demand. Its appeal is from a judgment in excess of that amount.
Culver as principal and appellant as surety executed the bond pursuant to § 274(k), Revenue Act of 1926, 44 Stat. 55, § 502 of the Revenue Act of 1928, 45 Stat. 869:
On December 31, 1930, the taxpayer was indebted to the United States in the amount of $30,115.11 for deficiencies in taxes for prior years. Under the above statute he applied for and was granted by the Commissioner an extension to pay these deficiencies until February 15, 1932, conditioned upon his giving bond in the penal amount of $36,390.00.
We quote the material portions of the bond.
On February 15, 1932, the expiration of the extension period, taxpayer Culver failed to pay the principal amount of the deficiency plus the 6 percent interest required for the duration of the extension period. Nor has he at any time since then paid this obligation.
On November 15, 1933, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for the first time gave notice of this default to the appellant surety. Payment was not forthcoming from appellant and this action was begun.
The plaintiff demanded the sum of $33,867.45, being the amount of the extended deficiency, plus interest at 6 percent for the period of extension,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Davis Cattle Co., Inc. v. Great Western Sugar Company
...76 F.2d 626; United States v. Wagner, 9 Cir., 93 F.2d 77; United States v. Hamilton, 7 Cir., 96 F.2d 878; Massachusetts Bonding and Ins. Co. v. United States, 9 Cir., 97 F.2d 879, 881." Since, as has been mentioned, under the circumstances here present, allowance of interest is a matter of ......
-
Royal Indemnity Co v. United States
...States v. Wagner, 9 Cir., 93 F.2d 77; United States v. Hamilton, 7 Cir., 96 F.2d 878, 117 A.L.R. 446; Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v. United States, 9 Cir., 97 F.2d 879, 881. But the rule governing the interest to be recovered as damages for delayed payment of a contractual obligation t......
-
In re Technology for Energy, Corp.
...to the dollar amount of the bond. See, e.g., Reid v. Miles Const. Co., 307 F.2d 214 (8th Cir. 1962); Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v. United States, 97 F.2d 879 (9th Cir. 1938); Dean v. Seco Elec. Co., 35 Oh.St.3d 203, 519 N.E.2d 837 (1988); General Ins. Co. v. City of Colorado Springs, ......
-
U.S. v. Reul
...down by the Supreme Court in United States v. Fidelity Co., 236 U.S. 512, 530 [35 S.Ct. 298, 303].... Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v. United States, 97 F.2d 879, 881 (9th Cir.1938). In a similar tax deficiency case, the Fifth Circuit also followed the unmistakable directive from the Sup......