United States v. Hopkins
Decision Date | 29 December 1960 |
Citation | 193 F. Supp. 207 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. John Randolph HOPKINS, Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, Natcon Chemical Co., Inc. and Rio Chemical Co., Inc., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
S. Hazard Gillespie, Jr., U. S. Atty., Southern Dist. of New York, New York City, for plaintiff, Myron J. Wiess, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, of counsel.
Casey, Lane & Mittendorf, New York City, for defendant Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co.
Henry Klein, New York City, for defendants Natcon Chemical Co., Inc. and Rio Chemical Co., Inc.
The Government moves pursuant to Rule 55(b), F.R.Civ.P., for a partial judgment by default against defendant-taxpayer John Randolph Hopkins enforcing the tax liens asserted in this action brought under section 1655 of title 28 U.S.Code. The Government further moves for summary judgment foreclosing a tax lien on the cash surrender value of an insurance policy issued to Hopkins by defendant Connecticut General Life Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as "Connecticut General") and for summary judgment foreclosing a tax lien on royalties due and to become due to Hopkins from defendant Rio Chemical Co., Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Rio Chemical").
Defendant Natcon Chemical Co., Inc. cross-moves for summary judgment dismissing on the merits the Government's action against it on the ground that Hopkins owns no right to receive royalty payments from Natcon Chemical Co., Inc. The Government does not oppose this cross-motion and it is granted.
The Government seeks a partial default judgment enforcing tax assessments against Hopkins for the years 1943 through 1949, the unpaid balance of which amounts to $1,076,623.07. Rio Chemical held, as of June 30, 1960, royalties in the sum of $2,039.89 which it owed to Hopkins. The royalties continue to accumulate at the rate of one-fourth of ten per cent of the gross amount of the annual sales of the products covered by the royalty agreement. The cash surrender value of the life insurance policy issued to Hopkins by Connecticut General amounted to $21,410.31, as of December 6, 1960, and is being applied to extended insurance coverage on Hopkins' life, by reason of a default in payment of premiums.
Defendant Connecticut General makes three points: (a) that Hopkins was incompetent at the time of the alleged beginning of the suit and that the court has obtained no jurisdiction under section 1655; (b) that no property of the taxpayer, or to which he has any right, title or interest is in the possession or under the control of defendant Connecticut General; and (c) that, if it be assumed that the taxpayer's rights under the policy are property in defendant Connecticut General's possession, such property is not located within this district or partly within this district and partly within another so as to be subject to a lien foreclosure action in which service may be made upon absent defendants under section 1655 of title 28 U.S.Code.
Section 1655 of title 28 U.S.Code, under which the action is brought reads as follows:
In an attempt to begin this action, the Government served Hopkins by publication pursuant to court order dated June 19, 1959. The Government sought to sustain service by publication under section 1655 of title 28 U.S.Code, alleging that Hopkins' whereabouts were unknown and that he was a fugitive from justice, having been criminally indicted in this district for income tax evasion on June 19, 1956. Subsequently, the Government alleged that Hopkins had been apprehended and incarcerated in New Mexico and obtained a court order pursuant to section 1655 of title 28 U.S. Code, authorizing personal service on him outside the State of New York. Personal service of the second supplemental summons and second amended complaint was made on Hopkins at the New Mexico State Hospital on January 12, 1960. Hopkins has not appeared in this action.
While awaiting trial for income tax evasion for the years 1950 and 1951, Hopkins was, on October 28, 1960,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Brody
...to 28 U.S.C. § 1655, as construed in United States v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 4th Cir., 256 F.2d 17, 23-24, and United States v. Hopkins, S.D.N.Y., 193 F.Supp. 207, 210, ordered service by publication on December 18, 1962 the United States filed a motion for summary judgment, accompanie......
-
United States v. Cameron Construction Co.
...business within the district, venue is properly laid in the Southern District of New York. 28 U.S.C. § 1391; cf. United States v. Hopkins, 193 F.Supp. 207 (S.D.N.Y.1960). The motion for preliminary injunction is Submit order on notice reciting the basic reasons for the relief granted. ...
-
United States v. McFaddin Express, Inc.
...192 F.2d 935 (8 Cir. 1951); Hooven, Owens, Rentschler Co. v. Royal Indemnity Co., 1 F.R.D. 526 (S.D.Ohio 1940); cf. United States v. Hopkins, 193 F.Supp. 207 (S.D.N.Y. 1960). Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied, but with leave to renew the motion at such time as a......
-
U.S. v. Roberts
...court must satisfy itself that the party is competent or is properly represented before entering a default judgment. United States v. Hopkins, 193 F.Supp. 207 (S.D.N.Y.1960); 21 Fed.Proc.L.Ed. Sec. 51:14 (1984). The Veteran's Administration averred that Roberts was competent without explain......