People of Puerto Rico v. United States, 3770
| Decision Date | 06 November 1942 |
| Docket Number | 3771.,No. 3770,3770 |
| Parties | PEOPLE OF PUERTO RICO v. UNITED STATES (two cases). |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
William Cattron Rigby, of Washington, D.C. (George A. Malcolm, Atty. Gen., of Puerto Rico, and Warner W. Gardner, Sol. for Department of the Interior, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellants.
Norman L. Littell, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Norman MacDonald and John P. Hearne, both of Washington, D. C., for appellees.
Before MAGRUDER, MAHONEY, and WOODBURY, Circuit Judges.
These are appeals from an "Order Declaring Non-existence of Tax Lien" and an "Order for Delivery of Money", entered, respectively, in the above named cases by the District Court of the United States for Puerto Rico. The same question is raised by each appeal. It is whether or not, in condemnation proceedings against land in Puerto Rico instituted by the United States Government between January 15 and July 1 in any year, that is, between the date, (January 15)1 of the assessment of real property taxes for the ensuing fiscal year, and the date, (July 1),2 when the first installment of the tax becomes payable, is the insular government entitled to receive, out of the money deposited by the United States Government upon the taking of the land in condemnation, the amount of the taxes levied for the ensuing fiscal year but not yet due and payable in ordinary course. In each case the district court answered this question in the negative and in each case the People of Puerto Rico appealed.
Jurisdiction over these appeals is conferred upon this court by § 128 of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 225.
By force of the statute, 40 U.S.C. A. § 258a, the money deposited in court by the United States Government at the time when it takes title under condemnation proceedings stands in the place of the land which has been taken and from it the claims of lienholders may be satisfied. This applies to tax liens as well as to liens of other kinds but only to existing liens, not to potential ones. City of St. Louis v. Dyer, 8 Cir., 56 F.2d 842; Drake v. City of St. Paul, 8 Cir., 65 F.2d 119. The determinative question in the case at bar, then, is whether or not the People of Puerto Rico had an existing, not just a potential, lien for taxes at the time when the land in question was taken.
The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico does not appear to have passed upon this question. It has held that an owner's personal responsibility for the payment of taxes on real property arises on the date of assessment and that his personal responsibility persists even though on the date when the first installment of the tax falls due the property has become exempt from taxation either because of its use for a charitable purpose or its sale to a municipality. Asociacion de Maestros de Puerto Rico v. Bonet, 54 D.P.R. 536 (Spanish edition); Roig v. Bonet, 54 D.P.R. 649 (Spanish edition). But in these cases the court expressly left undecided the question of the date when the lien for the tax arises. In fact in the case cited first above the court in deciding that the owner was personally liable for the tax quoted with approval a sentence from the opinion in Wood v. McCook Water-Works Co., 97 Neb. 215, 149 N.W. 417, L.R.A.1915C, 125, to the effect that "The fact that the assessment and the tax subsequently levied thereon had not become a lien upon the property, so as to make a purchaser thereof liable for the tax, is entirely immaterial", and in the Roig case supra, the court, with reference to the taxpayer's contention that he was not personally liable because a lien for the tax arose on the date of assessment, said: "The contention that the property is subject to a preferred lien in favor of the Treasurer is not decisive, and does not absolutely exempt him from a personal responsibility." In view of these cases we are forced to decide the question presented without the aid of any opinion or even of any dictum of the Supreme Court of Puerto to Rico.
Since tax...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
District of Columbia v. Sussman, 18275
...rule would seem to settle the question of apportionment in the negative." (Footnotes omitted.) See also People of Puerto Rico v. United States, 131 F.2d 151, 151-152 (1st Cir. 1942), cert. denied, 318 U.S. 775, 63 S. Ct. 832, 87 L.Ed. 1144 (1943), as "By force of the statute, 40 U.S.C.A. § ......
-
United States v. 3 Parcels of Land in Woodbury Co., Iowa
...under local law before title vests in the United States via condemnation are not to be paid from the award. People of Puerto Rico v. United States, 1 Cir., 1942, 131 F.2d 151, 152; United States v. Certain Lands in Borough of Brooklyn, D.C.1941, 41 F.Supp. 51, 53. In the former case the Cou......
-
United States v. 83.94 Acres of Land, Newport County, RI
...remedy for their removal and when such liens once attach, they may be lifted only as provided thereunder." In People of Puerto Rico v. United States, 1 Cir., 131 F.2d 151, 152, the court said: "By force of the statute, 40 U.S.C.A. § 258a, the money deposited in court by the United States Go......
-
Cohen v. Wasserman
...creditors." That this court undoubtedly would have applied a statutory form of this equitable principle in People of Puerto Rico v. United States, 1 Cir., 1942, 131 F.2d 151, certiorari denied 1943, 318 U.S. 775, 63 S.Ct. 832, 87 L.Ed. 1144, but for the finding that the tax lien under Puert......