Leonardi v. Goldberg
| Decision Date | 10 December 1941 |
| Citation | 76 F. Supp. 747 |
| Parties | LEONARDI v. GOLDBERG et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
Angelo A. DePersia, of Camden, N. J., for plaintiff.
Charles M. Phillips, U. S. Atty., of Trenton, N. J., and W. Orvyl Schalick, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Camden, N. J., for defendants.
The complaint in this case sets forth the making of an assessment for taxes based upon the possession of illicit liquor or, at least, the claimed interest of plaintiff in certain distilled spirits alleged to have been found on her farm; the making and execution of a distraint on the farm property; and the advertisement of the same for sale to satisfy the government lien. The complaint charges the illegality of the assessment and asks that the revenue collector and his deputy be permanently restrained from the collection of the claimed tax.
Application for temporary restraint was made soon after the filing of the complaint, and, after consideration thereof, I restrained the sale of the property until final hearing. The memorandum granting such restraint was filed March 12, 1940, and in it I discussed the reasons raised by the United States Attorney and disposed of questions of law in that memorandum.
The facts now proven show clearly that, although Mrs. Leonardi may have some small equity in the farm she owns, she cannot raise the money to pay the taxes, and the sale of the farm would take away her opportunity to support herself and her children. I am adhering to the law stated in the aforesaid memorandum as applicable to the facts brought out on final hearing. I still believe that plaintiff does not have an adequate remedy at law; that the Court is not precluded from entering judgment for plaintiff by reason of section 3224 of the Revised Statutes, 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code, § 3653(a), and that restraint may be granted as against the defendants named without requiring the United States to be made a party.
The facts:
They are clear — Mrs. Leonardi owned a farm in Gloucester county, New Jersey; she rented a portion of it, including a building of some character, to some one who established an illicit still thereon upon the assertion that they expected to produce Javelle water for laundry purposes. She testified that she was to receive as rent $10 per week, and that she was not aware that a still had been erected on her place until it was seized by United States officers. She further stated that she was not in any manner interested in the use thereof.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shelton v. Gill
...6 Cir., 128 F.2d 496; John M. Hirst & Co. v. Gentsch, 6 Cir., 133 F.2d 247; Mazzella v. Yoke, D.C.W.Va., 70 F.Supp. 462; Leonardi v. Goldberg, D.C.N.J., 76 F.Supp. 747. Compare Concentrate Mfg. Co. v. Higgins, 2 Cir., 90 F.2d 439; Burke v. Mingori, 10 Cir., 128 F.2d 996; Matcovich v. Nickel......
- Plummer v. Minneapolis-Moline Power Implement Co., Civil Action No. 2037.
-
Gehman v. Smith
...to earn his living in some other manner (Cf. Mazzella v. Yoke, supra) or that his home will be sold over his head. Cf. Leonardi v. Goldberg, D.C., 76 F.Supp. 747. Nor do plaintiff's other allegations establish a case of "gross and direst oppression". He may have been disappointed by the ora......
-
Long v. Kelly, 224-E.
...case held that there were no extraordinary circumstances and relief was denied. Driscoll v. Jones, D.C. 19 F.Supp. 792, Leonardi v. Goldburg, D.C., 76 F.Supp. 747, and Strang v. Maloney D.C.N.J. Jan. 15, 1943, 32 AFTR 1737, are almost identical to the present case in that the plaintiffs had......