Baumohl v. COLUMBIA JEWELRY COMPANY, Civ. No. 7864.
Decision Date | 28 January 1955 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 7864. |
Citation | 127 F. Supp. 865 |
Parties | Jacob P. BAUMOHL v. COLUMBIA JEWELRY COMPANY OF ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND, a body corporate, and Sidney A. Needle, Agent for Columbia Jewelry Company of Annapolis, Maryland, and U. S. Treasury Department, Internal Revenue Service, Appellate Division, and Mace Silverman. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Joseph W. Spector and Donald T. A. Fair, Baltimore, Md., for plaintiff.
Joseph Sherbow, Sidney A. Needle, Baltimore, Md., for Columbia Jewelry Co. of Annapolis, Md.
George Cochran Doub, U. S. Atty., and Walter E. Black, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Baltimore, Md., for U. S. Treasury Department.
Harold Lewis, Baltimore, Md., for Mace Silverman.
Defendants' several motions to dismiss question the jurisdiction of this court and the suability of one of the defendants. The complaint cites no statute, but alleges that "The matter in controversy exceeds, exclusion of interest and costs, the sum of $3000.00 and Defendant, U. S. Treasury Department Internal Revenue Service, is an instrumentality of the U. S. Government". At the argument plaintiff's counsel claimed jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1340, which provides:
."
The complaint alleges that defendant U. S. Treasury Department Internal Revenue Service holds a tax lien against defendant Columbia Jewelry Company, Int. Rev.Code 1954, §§ 6321, 6322, 26 U.S. C.A., 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 3670, 3671, but does not allege that said lien has ever been filed anywhere by the collector, Int.Rev. Code 1954, § 6323, 26 U.S.C.A., 26 U.S. C.A. § 3672. The complaint further alleges that defendant Needle, as secretary of and attorney for the company, negotiated with the Internal Revenue Service for settlement of the lien, and, as a result of said negotiations, was authorized by the Internal Revenue Service to accept sealed bids for the assets of the company, such bids to be opened by an agent of the Internal Revenue Service and to be accepted or rejected as the Internal Revenue Service might decide; that on Friday, October 29, 1954, the assets of the company were "opened for inspection" of prospective purchasers, and sealed bids were received by Needle; that plaintiff "has reason to believe" that defendant Mace Silverman was represented by an associate of Needle; that plaintiff bid $68,000 for the assets; that his bid was rejected; that "the alleged bid of Mace Silverman, $68,250.00, represented by an attorney believed to be as (sic) associate of the attorney conducting the sale therefore was highest"; that plaintiff on or about November 1, 1954, made known to the agent of Internal Revenue Service "his beliefs and complaints concerning the irregularities, collusion and dual representations" and by letter dated on or about November 5. 1954, offered $69,000 for the assets; that "the irregularities, collusion and dual representation...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Murphy v. I.R.S.
...could not sue or be sued unless Congress authorized the particularly agency as a potential party to the suit. See Baumohl v. Columbia Jewelry Co., 127 F.Supp. 865 (D.Md.1955); O'Connell v. IRS, 93 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1841; M & M Transp. Co. v. U.S. Industries, Inc., 416 F.Supp. 865 (1976). Cur......
-
M & M TRANSP. CO. v. US Industries, Inc.
...Revenue Service may be sued eo nomine, Blackmar v. Guerre, 342 U.S. 512, 72 S.Ct. 410, 96 L.Ed. 534 (1952); Baumohl v. Columbia Jewelry Co., 127 F.Supp. 865 (D.Md.1955), the Secretary of the Treasury and/or the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service would be the proper parties to be n......
-
Washburn v. Shapiro
...F.2d 793 (5th Cir. 1949) (Department of Agriculture is not a juridical person and therefore not a suable entity); Baumohl v. Columbia Jewelry, 127 F.Supp. 865 (D.Md.1955) (U.S. Treasury Dept., IRS, not a legal entity which can be sued in the federal district SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS Consider......
-
Pace v. Platt
...Krouse v. U.S. Government Treasury Dept. Internal Revenue Serv., 380 F.Supp. 219, 221 (C.D.Cal.1974); Baumohl v. Columbia Jewelry Co., 127 F.Supp. 865 (D.Md.1955). Accordingly, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over suits against the IRS. Therefore, Defendants' motion is GRANTED ......