United States v. Curry
| Decision Date | 27 December 1912 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. CURRY et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
John Philip Hill and J. Craig McLanahan, both of Baltimore, Md U.S. attys.
William F. Broening, of Baltimore, Md., for defendant Charles G Wanner, Jr.
Harry K. Brooks, of Baltimore, Md., for defendant George Romoser.
The government, by its amended bill of complaint, charges that in August, 1910, an assessment of $7,344 was made against the defendant Mary E. Curry on account of stamp and special taxes due and unpaid, incurred by her as a manufacturer of oleomargarine; that on the 26th of September, 1910, she was notified by the collector of internal revenue for the district of Maryland of such assessment; that on the 7th of October, 1910, formal demand for the payment thereof was served on her; that on and after the time said assessment was received by the collector of internal revenue, and thence continuously until the 7th day of October, 1910, when demand was made upon her, she was possessed of the leasehold interest in certain real estate in Baltimore City and was seized in fee of certain real estate in Baltimore county. All this property is particularly described by metes and bounds. The bill then sets forth that at various dates thereafter the earliest being the 25th of November, 1910, Mrs. Curry conveyed all of such property, some of it by way of mortgage and some absolutely, to some of the other defendants, and that by various mesne assignments some of such defendants conveyed their interest absolutely or by way of mortgage to still other of the defendants. The bill alleges that on account of the lien on the property aforesaid, which had arisen from the assessment of said tax, the said conveyances of the property were null and void in so far as the lien of the United States was concerned, and that the government was entitled to have the interest of the said Mary E. Curry in said real estate held by her at the time of the levy of said taxes and the demand for the payment thereof sold, and the proceeds of sale devoted to the payment of the said assessment, and for said purpose to have determined the merits of all claims and liens upon the real estate or interests therein in question.
The defendants demurred to the bill on two grounds, one, that the bill was multifarious. It is said that those defendants other than Mrs. Curry who were interested in the real estate formerly belonging to her have no interest in the leasehold property, and those who have claims upon the leasehold property have no concern with the real estate.
In the brief filed by the defendants they did not rely upon this ground of demurrer, nor do I think that it is sustainable. If the government acquired a lien by the assessment of the tax and the demand for its payment, that lien attached to all the property of Mrs. Curry. It was not apportionable among the various tracts of land or terms of years then held by her. It is hard to see how, under such circumstances, justice could be done to those who might have acquired interests in the property junior to the lien of the government without making them all parties to one suit.
The other ground of demurrer is that the bill does not state any case which entitles the government to any relief in equity against defendants other than Mrs. Curry.
In argument two reasons why the bill is wanting in equity are alleged:
First it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Territory of Alaska v. The Arctic Maid
...that notice of lien be recorded, docketed or filed in the absence of statute requiring such. 53 C.J.S., Liens, § 6, p. 850; United States v. Curry, D.C., 201 F. 371. In this respect the lien is no different than the maritime lien for necessaries furnished vessels under the Ship Mortgage Act......
-
North Gate Corp. v. North Gate Bowl, Inc.
...13 S.Ct. 846, 37 L.Ed. 705. Suyder involved an antecedent of sec. 6321, Int.Rev.Code of 1954, sec. 3186 of the Revised Statutes.10 (D.C.Md. 1912), 201 F. 371.11 The instant case arose in 1965 and the statutes applicable are those in effect at that time, i.e., sec. 6323(a) as it existed in 1......
-
Detroit Bank v. United States
...1016. Before the amendment this Court had held in United States v. Snyder, 149 U.S. 210, 13 S.Ct. 846, 37 L.Ed. 705; cf. United States v. Curry, D.C., 201 F. 371, 374, that in the absence of a federal statute requiring government tax liens to be recorded they are superior to subsequent Peti......
-
U.S. v. Vohland, 80-4248
...requires a government tax lien to be recorded, the unrecorded lien may be enforced against subsequent transferees. United States v. Curry, 201 F. 371, 374 (D.Md.1912). See Detroit Bank v. United States, 317 U.S. at 334, 63 S.Ct. at 299 (priority of estate tax liens over subsequent mortgagee......