Damm v. U-Save Holding Corporation

• Decision Date: 16 April 1932
• Docket Number: No. U-72-H.,U-72-H.
• Citation: 58 F.2d 416
• Parties: DAMM v. U-SAVE HOLDING CORPORATION.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Panama Canal Zone

58 F.2d 416 (1932)

DAMM v. U-SAVE HOLDING CORPORATION.

No. U-72-H.

District Court, S. D. California, Central Division.

April 16, 1932.

John Perry Wood and Stanley Arndt, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for Harold W. Herlihy.

Harold P. Huls, City Atty., and Leonard A. Diether, Deputy City Atty., both of Pasadena, Cal., for city of Pasadena.

Mitchell, Silberberg & Davis, of Los Angeles, Cal., amici curie, for receiver.

Everett W. Mattoon, Co. Counsel, and Gordon Boller, Deputy Co. Counsel, both of Los Angeles, Cal., amici curie, for city of Pasadena.

HOLLZER, District Judge.

It being conceded, at the hearing, that the defendant owned no property within the city of Pasadena at the time of the appointment of the receiver, and it being further admitted that the assets in the hands of the receiver are insufficient to pay the claims of unsecured creditors in full, the application of said city for an order directing the receiver to pay in full its claim for the tax levied upon personal property owned, but disposed of, by said defendant prior to the appointment of the receiver, is denied. An exception is allowed to the claimant city of Pasadena. See City of Richmond v. Bird et al., 249 U. S. 174, 39 S. Ct. 186, 63 L. Ed. 543; Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Bramwell (D. C.) 12 F.(2d) 307; Bignell v. Cummins, 69 Mont. 294, 222 P. 797, 36 A. L. R. 634; County of Glynn v. Brunswick Ter. Co., 101 Ga. 244, 28 S. E. 604; Edmonson v. Walker, 137 Tenn. 569, 195 S. W. 168; County Court of Calhoun County v. Matthews, 99 W. Va. 483, 129 S. E. 399, 52 A. L. R. 751.