United States v. Dallas Nat. Bank
| Decision Date | 10 July 1944 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 992. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. DALLAS NAT. BANK et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
A. W. Christian, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff.
J. L. Lipscomb (of Hamilton, Lipscomb, Wood & Swift), of Dallas, Tex., for defendants.
Mrs. Belle Shumard created a trust for the benefit of certain legatees, under the provisions of which the defendant Carolyn C. Maxwell's portion was guarded by this provision, to wit:
The income tax on this particular inheritance, at Dallas, Texas, has been paid.
Mrs. Maxwell and her husband, Gerald L. Maxwell, are residents and inhabitants of England.
On March 7, 1944, an order for substituted service was granted under the statute, on a suit instituted by the plaintiff for taxes, penalties, and interest, assessed against the defendant Maxwell, for the years 1931, 1934 and 1935, wherein plaintiff claimed a lien on the above share from her grandmother Shumard. The amount sought by the plaintiff is $7,622.70.
The proof introduced at the trial tends to show that the assessment against Mrs. Maxwell was made on an alleged stock market transaction in New York, and all notices that were sent to her and all the assessments that were made against her came from the Commissioner and the Collector at New York.
There are two defenses to recovery. Both seem to be good. The first is that donor Shumard had the right to order her property for the benefit of her granddaughter so as to protect it in the manner shown in the above quotation, and that payments to her are not liable to lien or seizure for the indebtedness, if any there is, growing out of the New York affair.
Provisions against alienation and liability for the donee's debts, when appearing by express words, or necessary implication, are valid and will be respected. The question is not even debatable. Nunn v. Titche-Goettinger Co.,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mercantile Trust Co. v. Hofferbert
...state statute was again involved. See Canfield v. Security-First National Bank, 13 Cal.2d 1, 12, 87 P.2d 830, 831. United States v. Dallas Nat. Bank, D.C.Tex., 56 F.Supp. 181, is apparently to the contrary, but it will be noted from the brief opinion that the question was also complicated b......