Simms v. Andrews, No. 2121.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtPHILLIPS, BRATTON, and HUXMAN, Circuit
Citation118 F.2d 803
PartiesSIMMS v. ANDREWS, Deputy Collector of Internal Revenue, et al.
Decision Date03 April 1941
Docket NumberNo. 2121.

118 F.2d 803 (1941)

SIMMS
v.
ANDREWS, Deputy Collector of Internal Revenue, et al.

No. 2121.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

April 3, 1941.


118 F.2d 804

Harold E. Rorschach, of Tulsa, Okl. (Goldesberry & Klein, of Tulsa, Okl., Jack L. Rorschach, of Vinita, Okl., and Harold C. Harper, of Tulsa, Okl., on the brief), for appellant.

Warren F. Wattles, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen. (Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and Whit Y. Mauzy, U. S. Atty. and Chester A. Brewer, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Tulsa, Okl., on the brief), for appellees.

Before PHILLIPS, BRATTON, and HUXMAN, Circuit Judges.

HUXMAN, Circuit Judge.

This controversy centers around an effort by the United States government to collect a deficiency assessment of income taxes from Hazel D. Woodward Bradshaw, for the years 1923, 1925 and 1928. The tax for 1928 has been paid and is not involved in this appeal.

Hazel D. Woodward Hawks Bradshaw, now Taylor, is a Creek Indian allottee, who was possessed of a sizeable fortune. She executed a declaration of trust whereby she conveyed her property to her father, H. E. Woodward, as trustee. Thereafter a new trust agreement was executed, naming the Exchange Trust Company trustee. June 26, 1930, an amended and supplemental trust agreement was adopted, by which she conveyed to the trustee 230 acres of real estate acquired by her subsequent to the execution of the preceding trust agreement, and also some personal property not involved herein. The trust company was liquidated and J. D. Simms1 was appointed trustee of the trust estate.

Notice of the deficiency determination for the years 1923 and 1925 was mailed to H. E. Woodward, trustee, and to Hazel D. Woodward Bradshaw. Notice of the 1928 deficiency assessment was mailed to Hazel D. Woodward Bradshaw.2 No notice of determination of tax deficiency was mailed to either the Exchange Trust Company or to J. D. Simms, successor in trust. An appeal was taken by the Taxpayer from each of these determinations to the Board of Tax Appeals.3 The Board rendered its decision June 22, 1933, determining a deficiency in taxes for the years 1923, 1925

118 F.2d 805
and 1928. No appeal was taken from the decision of the Board. The taxes found to be due were assessed against the Taxpayer by the Commissioner on July 8, 1933. Demand for payment was made in July, 1933, and successive warrants for distraint were issued. Notice of tax liens was filed in the office of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma and with the County Clerk of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Notice of levy on all property in its possession belonging to the Taxpayer was served on the Exchange National Bank. January 10, 1939, notice of sale of the 230 acres of land conveyed to the Trustee by the supplemental trust agreement was given. This notice was signed: "H. C. Jones, Collector of Internal Revenue, by signed Louis P. Andrews, Deputy Collector."

February 11, 1939, the Trustee instituted the present action against Louis P. Andrews, Deputy Collector, and H. C. Jones, Collector of Internal Revenue, defendants, in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Oklahoma. He sought to enjoin them from proceeding with the sale of the 230 acres and asked for a temporary restraining order, pending the final determination of the issue. In a second count he asked the return of four certain notes belonging to the trust estate, which he alleged had been unlawfully levied upon and seized, and for an accounting of any proceeds collected on these notes.

The defendants filed their joint answer, in which they asserted that the United States government was the real party in interest and that the court was without jurisdiction. The United States government filed an intervening petition asking to be permitted to intervene. It asserted its right to collect the taxes that had been assessed against the Taxpayer and asked that the Trustee be required to turn over to the Collector of Internal Revenue sufficient of the property of the trust estate to satisfy the outstanding taxes determined and assessed against the taxpayer.

Motions by the Trustee to strike the answers of the defendants and the cross petition of the government were denied. Issues were thereupon joined, and on December 5, 1939, judgment was entered against the Trustee and in favor of the defendants. On the cross petition, judgment was entered for the government, directing the Trustee to sell the 230 acres at public sale, and pay from the proceeds thereof a sufficient sum to H. C. Jones, Collector of Internal Revenue, to satisfy the taxes due the government from the Taxpayer.

Thereafter the Trustee filed a motion asking the court to vacate the judgment of December 5 "to permit plaintiff herein to file a motion or motions seeking permission of this court to amend his pleadings filed herein to accord with the proof adduced at the trial of this cause and received by the court."

A like motion was also filed, asking permission to amend the Trustee's reply to the intervening petition of the government for the reason "that said amendment will render said reply to petition for intervention conformable to the evidence received by the court at the trial of this cause, and for the further reason that the evidence adduced at the trial was not objected to either by counsel for the defendants or the intervenors."

The court entered an order vacating the judgment. The order provided: "It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed by this court that the plaintiff have leave to file motion or motions to amend the pleadings heretofore filed in this cause. It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed by this court that the clerk of the court be and he hereby is authorized to receive and file said motions and to set the same upon the docket for hearing by this court at the earliest practical date."

The amendment to the reply to the intervening petition set up as a new...

To continue reading

Request your trial
49 practice notes
  • Hardin v. Manitowoc-Forsythe Corp., MANITOWOC-FORSYTHE
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • October 5, 1982
    ...Gas Co., 609 F.2d 436, 440 (10th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 964, 100 S.Ct. 1653, 64 L.Ed.2d 239 (1980); Simms v. Andrews, 118 F.2d 803, 807 (10th Cir. 1941). When the evidence claimed to show that an issue was tried by consent is relevant to an issue already in the case, and there i......
  • T. J. Stevenson & Co., Inc. v. 81,193 Bags of Flour, No. 77-2523
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • October 27, 1980
    ...v. City of Brookhaven, 134 F.2d 442 (5th Cir. 1943); MBI Motor Co. v. Lotus/East Inc., 506 F.2d 709 (6th Cir. 1974); Simms v. Andrews, 118 F.2d 803 (10th Cir. 65 ADM's argument is that Rule 15(b) applies ignores the fact that Stevenson applied for and received, albeit after the close of evi......
  • Smith Petroleum Service, Inc. v. Monsanto Chemical Co., No. 26137.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • January 7, 1970
    ...Cir. 1955, 231 F.2d 583, 584; Washington Gas Light Company v. Baker, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 98, 195 F.2d 29, 32; Simms v. Andrews, 10 Cir. 1941, 118 F.2d 803, 805-806; Medd v. Westcott, E.D.Iowa 1963, 32 F.R.D. 25, 28; Union National Bank v. Superior Steel Corporation, W.D.Pa.1949, 9 F.R.D. 124, 1......
  • Apex Mut. Ins. Co. v. Christner, Gen. No. 50851
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • September 18, 1968
    ...545) and is subject to correction or vacation at any time prior to ultimate disposition of the case. 3 See Simms v. Andrews, 10 Cir., 118 F.2d 803, 806; Prudence Mut. Cas. Co. v. Sturms, 37 Ill.App.2d 304, 308, 185 N.E.2d 4 It should be borne in mind that, under the decree as corrected four......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
49 cases
  • Hardin v. Manitowoc-Forsythe Corp., MANITOWOC-FORSYTHE
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • October 5, 1982
    ...Gas Co., 609 F.2d 436, 440 (10th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 964, 100 S.Ct. 1653, 64 L.Ed.2d 239 (1980); Simms v. Andrews, 118 F.2d 803, 807 (10th Cir. 1941). When the evidence claimed to show that an issue was tried by consent is relevant to an issue already in the case, and there i......
  • T. J. Stevenson & Co., Inc. v. 81,193 Bags of Flour, No. 77-2523
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • October 27, 1980
    ...v. City of Brookhaven, 134 F.2d 442 (5th Cir. 1943); MBI Motor Co. v. Lotus/East Inc., 506 F.2d 709 (6th Cir. 1974); Simms v. Andrews, 118 F.2d 803 (10th Cir. 65 ADM's argument is that Rule 15(b) applies ignores the fact that Stevenson applied for and received, albeit after the close of evi......
  • Smith Petroleum Service, Inc. v. Monsanto Chemical Co., No. 26137.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • January 7, 1970
    ...Cir. 1955, 231 F.2d 583, 584; Washington Gas Light Company v. Baker, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 98, 195 F.2d 29, 32; Simms v. Andrews, 10 Cir. 1941, 118 F.2d 803, 805-806; Medd v. Westcott, E.D.Iowa 1963, 32 F.R.D. 25, 28; Union National Bank v. Superior Steel Corporation, W.D.Pa.1949, 9 F.R.D. 124, 1......
  • Apex Mut. Ins. Co. v. Christner, Gen. No. 50851
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • September 18, 1968
    ...545) and is subject to correction or vacation at any time prior to ultimate disposition of the case. 3 See Simms v. Andrews, 10 Cir., 118 F.2d 803, 806; Prudence Mut. Cas. Co. v. Sturms, 37 Ill.App.2d 304, 308, 185 N.E.2d 4 It should be borne in mind that, under the decree as corrected four......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT