Rothensies v. Ullman, 7110.
| Decision Date | 15 March 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 7110.,7110. |
| Citation | 110 F.2d 590 |
| Parties | ROTHENSIES, Collector of Internal Revenue, v. ULLMAN et ux. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
J. Cullen Ganey, U. S. Atty., Thomas J. Curtin, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Philadelphia, Pa., Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key, J. Louis Monarch, and Croft Jennings, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Walter I. Summerfield, of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees.
Before BIGGS, MARIS, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue having assessed a tax against David L. Ullman as transferee of the Trainor Company for income taxes due from that company for the year 1933, the appellant caused a warrant of distraint to be issued against a joint deposit account of Ullman and his wife in the Tradesmens National Bank and Trust Company. The bank refused to honor the distraint. On February 27, 1939 the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania upon the petition of the appellees entered an order quashing the warrant of distraint upon the ground that the appellees held as tenants by entireties the account against which it was directed and that such an estate under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania cannot be attached or levied upon for an obligation due by either spouse individually. The period of ten days fixed by Sec. 1007, Rev.Stat., as amended, 28 U.S.C.A. § 874, having expired and no appeal having been taken or stay obtained by the appellant, the appellees on March 15, 1939 withdrew the entire balance on deposit in their joint account in the Tradesmens National Bank and Trust Company. Sixty-nine days later notice of appeal from the order of the district court quashing the warrant of distraint was filed by the appellant. Thereafter the appellees moved to dismiss the appeal for the reason that the issues involved had become moot.
Although the question was not raised in the district court the appellant now contends that the court was without jurisdiction to quash the warrant of distraint. Sec. 934, Rev.Stat., 28 U.S.C.A. § 747, provides that "All property taken or detained by any officer or other person, under authority of any revenue law of the United States, shall be irrepleviable, and shall be deemed to be in the custody of the law, and subject only to the orders and decrees of the courts of the United States having jurisdiction thereof." It was early held that property of a third party seized under a warrant of distraint for the payment of taxes was "property taken or detained by any officer" within the meaning of this section. Treat v. Staples, Fed.Cas. No. 14,162, Holmes 1; Brice v. Elliott, Fed.Cas. No. 1,854, 2 Wkly.Notes Cas., Pa., 560. It has been held by the Supreme Court that district courts having jurisdiction of property "taken or detained" by revenue officers are given power by the last clause of the section to decide claims of title and to award to the rightful owner possession of the property seized. Ex parte Fassett, 142 U.S. 479, 12 S.Ct. 295, 35 L.Ed. 1087. Such property, although seized by executive warrant, is, as the act expressly provides, "in the custody of the law" and subject to "the orders and decrees of the courts of the United States" having jurisdiction of the officer and the property under Sec. 24(5), of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 41(5).
We do not think that the district court was deprived of jurisdiction by Sec. 3653,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Logan Planing Mill Co. v. Fidelity and Casualty Co. of NY
...They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope." The Rasmussen case was cited in Rothensies v. Ullman, 3 Cir., 110 F.2d 590, where the Court "We think that the section of the Internal Revenue Code which we have quoted was not intended to deprive the co......
-
Gordon v. United States
...of Commerce of Phoenix, 168 F.2d 709, 712 (9th Cir. 1948); Tomlinson v. Smith, 128 F.2d 808, 811 (7th Cir. 1942); Rothensies v. Ullman, 110 F.2d 590, 592 (3d Cir. 1940); Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236, 238 11 ABA Final Report, Legislative History, supra. 12 Id. See also Phillips v. United St......
-
Cooper Agency, Inc. v. McLeod, Civ. A. No. AC-1283
...v. Nixon, 312 F.2d 200 (C.A. 6th); Abel v. Campbell, 309 F.2d 751 (C.A.5th). Plaintiffs further rely on the decisions in Rothensies v. Ullman, 110 F.2d 590 (C.A.3d); Raffaele v. Granger, 196 F.2d 620 (C.A.3d); and Adler v. Nicholas, 166 F.2d 674 (C.A.10th). These decisions hold, and rightly......
-
Floyd v. United States
...for which he is not liable. Raffaele v. Granger, 196 F.2d 620, 3rd Cir. 1952; Adler v. Nicholas, 166 F.2d 674, 10th Cir. 1948;9 Rothensies v. Ullman, 110 F.2d 590, 3rd Cir. 1940; Shelton v. Gill, 202 F.2d 503, 4th Cir. 1953, wherein at page 506 Judge Soper "It may be noted, at the outset, t......