Abeken v. United States

Decision Date26 January 1939
Docket NumberNo. 12143.,12143.
Citation26 F. Supp. 170
PartiesABEKEN v. UNITED STATES.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

Oliver Blackinton, of St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff.

Harry C. Blanton, U. S. Atty., of Sikeston, Mo., and Marshall Craig, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Charleston, Mo., for defendant.

DAVIS, District Judge.

This is a suit wherein plaintiff, Trustee in Bankruptcy of a partnership composed of Edward J. Butler and Charles F. Walsh, seeks to recover from defendant, United States of America, for alleged over payment of amusement taxes, the sum of $1,437.27 with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from December 16, 1934.

Plaintiff is a resident of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, and this court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit.

In 1933, a Missouri corporation, bearing the name "St. Louis Gunners Athletic Association, Inc." (of which Edward J. Butler was the principal stockholder), and at times using various trade names in which the word "Gunners" appeared, was sponsoring professional football games and collecting admission charges to the games, whereby amusement taxes in substantial sums became due to the United States.

The name "Gunners", as applied to a professional football team in St. Louis, had been widely advertised and exploited during 1933 and 1934, and had acquired a good will that was valuable in that business.

On December 16, 1934, the "St. Louis Gunners Athletic Association, Inc." owed the United States a balance of $824 as amusement taxes arising out of the receipts collected at football games played during the year of 1933. Demand was made for the payment of these taxes by the Collector of Internal Revenue upon the officers and employees of the corporation during the years of 1933 and 1934. In July, 1934, a warrant of distraint against the corporation was issued, but efforts to collect the balance due were not successful.

On or about November 6, 1934, Edward J. Butler, who was the principal stockholder in, and owner and manager of the "St. Louis Gunners Athletic Association, Inc.", and Charles F. Walsh, who was Coach of the "Gunners", entered into a contract to purchase and acquire in their own names, a franchise in the National Professional Football League, in consideration of which the said parties made payments of $8,500 on the purchase price of the said franchise. Thereupon, the said parties took possession of all the property of the corporation, consisting of the paraphernalia of the football team, the players' contracts, and the good will of the "Gunners"; entered into new playing contracts with the members of the team; and continued to sponsor football games in St. Louis and elsewhere in accordance with the regulations of the National League under the name of "Gunners".

Such a football game was played in St. Louis on December 16, 1934. Deputy Internal Revenue Collectors appeared at the game, and seized the sum of $1,917.96, which was made up of the following items, the correctness of none of which is in dispute:

                Amusement taxes due for the
                 game played on December 16
                 1934 ........................... $ 479.69
                Amusement taxes due for the
                 game played on December 2
                 1934 ...........................   614.27
                Amusement taxes assessed against
                 the "St. Louis Gunners Athletic
                 Association, Inc." for games
                 played during the year 1933 ....   824.00
                                                   ________
                    Total .......................  $1917.96
                

Thereafter, on January 12, 1935, an involuntary petition in Bankruptcy was filed against Edward J. Butler and Charles F. Walsh, individually and as co-partners, and on March 20, 1935, an order of adjudication was entered.

The plaintiff, Trustee in Bankruptcy, on July 18, 1935, filed claim for refund of the sum of $1,438.27, which in due course was "rejected in full", no claim for refund of the amount of tax collected for game of December 16, 1934, that is, $479.66, was made, and that item is not in dispute.

On April 9, 1937, this suit was filed.

Opinion.

The bankrupts, without the payment of any consideration, took over all the property of the "St. Louis Gunners Athletic Association, Inc." By taking all the assets of the corporation without notice to creditors, the partnership likewise assumed the debts of the corporation.

One who appropriates the assets of a corporation to his individual use is personally liable for corporate debts to the extent of such assets. Fulton Auto Supply Co. v. Sullivan, 148 Ga. 347, 96...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Bruun v. Katz Drug Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 13, 1949
    ... ... be granted. Plaintiff's supplemental petition states a ... cause of action against the Delaware corporation, as the ... subsisting corporation in a ... Heap O'Brien Mining Co. and Grand Haven Mining Co., ... 194 Mo.App. 140, 186 S.W. 739; Abeken v. United ... States, 26 F.Supp. 170; Kinsello v. Marquette ... Eastern Finance Corp., 28 S.W.2d ... ...
  • Thomas v. Gulfway Shopping Center, Inc., Civ. A. No. 66-C-118.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • April 7, 1970
    ...manner in which to conduct one's affairs. See, e. g., Canright v. General Fin. Corp., 35 F.Supp. 841 (E.D.Ill.1940); Abeken v. United States, 26 F.Supp. 170 (D.C.Mo.1939); 3 Collier, Bankruptcy Par. 60.02, .03 (14th ed. 1964); Seligson, Preferences Under the Bankruptcy Act, 15 Vand.L. Rev. ......
  • Cyr v. B. Offen & Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • May 6, 1974
    ...seller, but cannot determine the rights of third parties, when no effort to give notice of the change was made. See Abeken v. United States, 26 F.Supp. 170 (E.D.Mo.1939); see also Blumenthal v. Schneider, 186 Wis. 588, 203 N.W. 393 (1925). This brings us to the basic issue of the justificat......
  • Copease Manufacturing Co. v. Cormac Photocopy Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • July 27, 1965
    ...of the Eisbein patent by Cormac Photocopy Corporation prior to March 1, 1961, the plaintiff cites the cases of Abeken v. United States (D.C.Mo.1939), 26 F.Supp. 170, and Philadelphia Rubber Works Co. v. U. S. Rubber Reclaiming Works (2d Cir. 1921), 277 F. 171. In the first case cited the si......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT