Phoenix State Bank & Trust Co. v. Bitgood
| Decision Date | 21 July 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 3741.,3741. |
| Citation | 28 F. Supp. 899 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | PHŒNIX STATE BANK & TRUST CO. v. BITGOOD, Acting Collector of Internal Revenue. |
Halloran & Sage, of Hartford, Conn. (Robert L. Halloran, of Hartford, Conn., and Henry E. Shannon, Jr., of Bridgeport, Conn., of counsel), for plaintiff.
Sewall Key, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Andrew D. Sharpe and Lyle M. Turner, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., and Robert P. Butler, U. S. Atty., of Hartford, Conn., for defendant.
This is a motion by the plaintiff to substitute the United States as sole party defendant in lieu of the present defendant. On or about March 10, 1931, the plaintiff, executor and trustee of the Estate of Rollin J. Plumb, filed an income tax return for the Rollin J. Plumb Trust showing a tax due of $19,519.93. This sum was paid in quarterly installments between March 10, 1931, and December 15, 1931.
On May 19, 1933, the plaintiff filed with the then Collector of Internal Revenue for the District of Connecticut, Robert O. Eaton, a claim for refund in the sum of $11,752.92. Mr. Eaton served as Collector from July 1, 1921, to August 27, 1933. On October 24, 1934, the claim for refund was disallowed and notice thereof sent to the plaintiff. On November 14, 1934, Mr. Eaton died.
On May 20, 1935, the plaintiff erroneously filed suit against the defendant, A. Don Bitgood, then Acting Collector of Internal Revenue, to recover the $11,752.92 as set forth in the claim for refund. In order to correct this error of naming the wrong party defendant, the plaintiff now seeks to substitute the United States.
The substitution of one Collector for another who has been erroneously sued constitutes the commencement of a new cause of action. Third National Bank & Trust Co. v. White, D.C., 58 F.2d 411; Toledo Rys. & Light Co. v. McMaken, D. C., 17 F.Supp. 338; see 5 Paul & Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation (1934) Sec. 51.69; cf. Davis v. L. L. Cohen & Co., 268 U.S. 638, 45 S.Ct. 633, 69 L.Ed. 1129. Similarly, this motion to substitute the United States is, in effect, the attempted commencement of a new cause of action. Moreover, being an action against the United States, it must be commenced with the requisite formalities prescribed for such actions. See Rule 4(d) (4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.
Unfortunately for the plaintiff, this attempt to commence a new cause of action comes at a time when the Statute of Limitations has run. While the plaintiff bases its authority for bringing an action against the United States in the District Court on the provisions of 28 U.S. C.A. § 41(20), the six year limitation prescribed therein must yield before the more specific limitation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wagner v. New York, Ontario and Western Railway
...123 U.S. 227, 8 S.Ct. 82, 31 L.Ed. 128; United States ex rel. Rauch v. Davis, supra, 8 F.2d at page 909; Phoenix State Bank & Trust Co. v. Bitgood, D.C.Conn.1939, 28 F.Supp. 899, and see Knickerbocker Fuel Co. v. Mellon, 2 Cir., 1927, 22 F.2d 500, as to the statute itself; (see and cf. Gran......
-
Royal Worcester Corset Co. v. White
...is not permissible. Davis, Agent, v. L. L. Cohen & Co., Inc., 268 U. S. 638, 45 S.Ct. 633, 69 L.Ed. 1129; Phœnix State Bank & Trust Co. v. Bitgood, D.C., 28 F.Supp. 899; Third National Bank & Trust Co. of Springfield v. White, Coll., D. C., 58 F.2d 411; Toledo Railways & Light Co. v. McMake......
-
Daiprai v. Moberly Fuel & Transfer Co.
...of the original petition, but a substitution of parties defendant and cause of action. Sec. 847.17-A, Mo. Annotated Stat.; 2 F.R.D. 167; 28 F.Supp. 899; Fair v. Augen, S.W.2d 402; Meyer v. Oregon Ry. Co., 271 S.W. 865; Webster v. Joplin Water Works, 177 S.W.2d 447; Thompson v. Allen, 86 Mo.......
-
Bruno v. U.S.
...inapplicable to claim for extra compensation meat subsidy governed by provision of Emergency Price Control Act): Phoenix State Bank v. Bitgood, 28 F.Supp. 899 (D.Conn.1939) (in actions against the United States for internal revenue taxes erroneously collected, the six year limitation prescr......