United States v. Morrisdale Coal Co., 337.
| Decision Date | 22 June 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 337.,337. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. MORRISDALE COAL CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Thomas J. Curtin, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Gerald A. Gleeson, U. S. Atty., both of Philadelphia, Pa., and Donald J. Marran, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.
Geo. E. H. Goodner, of Washington, D. C., and Rawle & Henderson and Thomas F. Mount, all of Philadelphia, Pa., and
Harry Boulton, of Clearfield, Pa., for defendant.
This is an action by the United States upon abatement bond given by the defendant to the Collector, to stay the collection of additional income and excess profit taxes for the years 1917 and 1918, in the total amount of $82,262.01.
Shortly after suit was instituted the surety paid the face amount of the bond into Court and was permitted to withdraw, under an order providing that in the event of a judgment for the plaintiff the money was to go to the plaintiff, and in the event of judgment for the defendant it was to be returned to the surety. Both parties have filed affidavits, upon which the plaintiff has moved for summary judgment and the defendant has moved to dismiss. There is no dispute as to any fact which the Court deems material.
The affidavits cover practically the whole field of the defendant's tax dealings with the Government and a great deal of the matter contained in them is immaterial. The essential facts are as follows:
In August, 1921, the Commissioner assessed additional taxes against the defendant for the years 1917 and 1918 in the respective amounts of $22,804.39 and $141,719.64. The Collector made demand and on October 27, the defendant filed claims in abatement. On December 1, 1921, defendant paid about half of each assessment and gave the bond in suit to stay collection of the balance. After applying the payments to their proper years, the balance due for 1918 taxes was $70,669.45. The obligee was "Blakely D. McCaughn, Collector, First District, Pennsylvania," and the bond recited the assessments for the respective years, the payment on account, and the filing of the claims in abatement for the balance.
In 1925 the Government's claim in respect of 1917 taxes, as finally adjusted, was paid, and further proceedings upon it are immaterial to this issue.
In 1927 the defendant filed a petition with the Board of Tax Appeals for a redetermination of several deficiency assessments against it, including the one for 1918, proceedings upon which resulted in an adverse decision by the Board of Tax Appeals which was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals in May, 1938, Morrisdale Supply Co. v. Com'r, 3 Cir., 97 F.2d 272.
On January 10, 1939, the Collector made demand on the defendant for the payment of the outstanding and unabated portion of the additional tax assessed for 1918, in the amount of $70,669.45. On refusal to pay, this action was instituted.
The Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 17(a), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, provide that "Every action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest." I am of the opinion that the United States, and not McCaughn personally, is the real party in interest and that the suit was properly brought in its name.
When this bond was given, the Government had the right summarily to collect the additional tax assessed, leaving the defendant to litigate afterward. Proceedings to collect would have been instituted by the Collector, but merely in his capacity as subordinate official of the Treasury Department. In respect of collection of a tax assessed his duty is ministerial and there is nothing left to his discretion, Moore Ice Cream Co. v. Rose, 289 U.S. 373, 381, 53 S.Ct. 620, 77 L.Ed. 1265.
The purpose of giving the bond was to obtain from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Techno Fund, Inc.
...v. Blackburn, 109 F.Supp. 319 (E.D.Mo. 1952); United States v. New York Dock Co., 100 F.Supp. 303 (S.D.N.Y.); United States v. Morrisdale Coal Co., 46 F.Supp. 356 (E.D.Pa.1942), affirmed per curiam, 135 F.2d 921 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 320 U.S. 756, 64 S.Ct. 64, 88 L.Ed. 451 (1943). The co......
-
In re Adana Mortg. Bankers, Inc., Bankruptcy No. 80-00324A
...Of course, a federal agency that lacks the capacity to sue must bring the action in the name of the United States. U.S. v. Morrisdale Coal Co. (D.C. Pa. 1942) 46 F.Supp. 356, affd. per. cur., 135 F.2d 921 (3rd Cir. 1943). Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Civil § 1562. But, b......
-
Samson Tire & Rubber Corporation v. Rogan, 10201.
...316 U.S. 258, 62 S.Ct. 1064, 86 L.Ed. 1455, 140 A.L.R. 792; Huntley v. So. Oregon Sales, 9 Cir., 104 F.2d 153; United States v. Morrisdale Coal Co., D.C.E.D.Pa., 46 F.Supp. 356; Brauch v. Birmingham, D.C.N.D. Iowa, 49 F.Supp. The mandate is ordered recalled and the clerk ordered to tax the ......
-
United States v. Stuart, 16710.
...Administrator may sue, the United States may also sue on this type of claim as the real party in interest, cf., United States v. Morrisdale Coal Co., 46 F.Supp. 356 (E.D.Pa.), aff'd., 135 F.2d 921 (3rd Cir. 1942), cert. denied 320 U.S. 756, 64 S.Ct. 64, 88 L.Ed. 451 (1943). The language of ......