First Nat. Bank of Brownsville, Texas v. United States, Civ. A. No. 1262.
| Decision Date | 20 April 1959 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 1262. |
| Citation | 172 F. Supp. 757 |
| Parties | FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES of America, Texas Kenworth Corporation, Reynolds Refrigerated Truck Service, Inc., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Ransome & Ray, Brownsville, Tex., for plaintiff.
William B. Butler, U. S. Atty., John H. Baumgarten, Asst. U. S. Atty., Houston, Tex., for United States.
C. S. Eidman, Jr., Brownsville, Tex., Dick P. Wood, Dallas, Tex., for Texas Kenworth Corp.
This is a purported interpleader action by plaintiff First National Bank of Brownsville, Texas, which is a citizen of Texas for jurisdictional purposes.1 It is brought against the United States and two Texas corporations,2 hereafter called Kenworth and Reynolds.
Plaintiff alleges that on December 24, 1958, it received by mail from Kenworth a cashier's check, for $3,374.77, drawn upon a New York bank, payable to Reynolds; that the letter of transmittal instructed the Bank to procure Reynold's endorsement on the check and return it to Kenworth but, before this could be done, a notice of levy by the Internal Revenue Service was served upon it claiming a $5,739.10 tax lien against Reynolds. The Bank moved for an order, which was granted, that the Clerk be authorized to receive the money into the registry pending determination of the rights of the defendants.
The United States has moved to file a petition in intervention. The motion being brought on, the question of jurisdiction arises and it is the Court's duty to notice it.
The Interpleader Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1335, confers original jurisdiction upon the district courts of any civil action or interpleader or in the nature thereof "if (1) Two or more adverse claimants, of diverse citizenship as defined in section 1332 of this title, are claiming or may claim to be entitled to such money or property * * *." This does not require diversity between the plaintiff and defendant-claimants but it does require two or more claimants of diverse citizenship.3
The United States is not a citizen for jurisdictional purposes.4 Apparently this is the reason why the Government seeks to intervene after being made a party. But there must be an action over which the court has jurisdiction before intervention can be allowed. The only citizens in the case are (1) plaintiff, a citizen of Texas and (2) defendants Kenworth and Reynolds, both Texas corporations. There being no diversity, the Court has no jurisdiction under either the Interpleader Act, or the general diversity statute, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332, even if the amount in controversy exceeded $10,000.5
Plaintiff pleads that jurisdiction exists also "by virtue * * * of Section 1340 and/or Section 2410 of Chapter 28 of the United States Code. "Section 1340 reads as follows:
By no stretch of the imagination can this case be said to come within the foregoing provisions of Section 1340.
Section 2410 of Title 28 U.S.C.A. reads, so far as pertinent here, as follows:
In Tompkins v. United States, 172 F.Supp. 204, this Court followed the majority rule6 holding that section 2410 presupposes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
EC ROBINSON LUMBER COMPANY v. Hughes
...an appropriate action in the state court from which it may be removed to this Court by the United States under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1444." (172 F.Supp. 757, 759). Based upon the foregoing, the court does not concur with the result reached in George v. United States, supra. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1444 e......
-
General Ry. Signal Co. v. Corcoran
...497 F.2d at 1327; United States v. Dry Dock Savings Institution, 149 F.2d 917, 918 (2d Cir.1945); First Nat'l Bank of Brownsville v. United States, 172 F.Supp. 757, 758 (S.D.Tex.1959). However, the United States is not a claimant in this action; the Administrator is.1 Where an agent of the ......
-
Haggard v. Lancaster, EC 7075.
...v. Tomlinson, 244 F.2d 897 (5 Cir. 1957); United States v. Morrison, 247 F.2d 285 (5 Cir. 1957); First National Bank of Brownsville, Texas v. United States, 172 F.Supp. 757 (D.C.Tex.1959); George v. United States, 181 F.Supp. 522 (D.C.Tex.1960). 9 United States v. Morrison, supra. 10 See an......
-
Davis v. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific R. Co.
... ... Civ. A. No. P-1733 ... United States District Court ... pile and by parked freight cars when he first entered the crossing. From a point which he ... ...