United States v. SAMEL REFINING CORPORATION, Civ. A. No. 68-383.
| Decision Date | 11 May 1970 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 68-383. |
| Citation | 313 F. Supp. 684 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. SAMEL REFINING CORPORATION, E. F. Drew & Co., Inc., Bernstein & Bernstein Realty Corporation, First Federal Savings and Loan Association. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Louis C. Bechtle, U. S. Atty., by Sidney R. Bixler, Tax Division, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.
Goodis, Greenfield, Narin & Mann, by Allen J. Levin, Philadelphia, Pa., for E. F. Drew & Co., Inc.
This is a suit to foreclose federal tax liens upon a sum of money deposited with the defendant First Federal Savings and Loan Association. Presently before the court are cross motions for summary judgment, one by E. F. Drew & Co., Inc. (hereinafter "Drew") one of the defendants, and one by the United States of America, the plaintiff herein. Since the facts are not in dispute and have been stipulated, there is presented solely an issue of law as to which of these parties is entitled to the fund in question. The claim of each of the moving parties exceeds the amount of the fund, and, accordingly, the claim of the successful party will consume the entire fund.
In September 1961, Samel Refining Corporation (hereinafter "Samel") entered into a five year lease for the premises located at 2929 E. Schiller Street, beginning October 1, 1961, and deposited with Bernstein and Bernstein Realty Corporation, the lessor, the sum of $9,000.00 pursuant to the following provision contained in Section 39 of that lease:
The lessor deposited this sum in a special escrow account with the First Federal Savings and Loan Association.
On March 12, 1965, Drew entered into a security agreement with Samel by which it undertook to purchase raw materials for Samel's operations, upon Samel's undertaking to repurchase such raw materials and granting to Drew a continuing security interest in all of Samel's existing accounts receivable and contract rights, together with the proceeds thereof as security for Samel's obligation to pay Drew the purchase price of the raw materials.
In Section 2(b), the security agreement recites that the term "contract rights" shall have the meaning contained in Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code.
In April 1965, following the execution of the Security Agreement, Drew perfected its security interest by filing with the appropriate state and county officers financing statements covering, among other things, all existing and hereinafter acquired accounts receivable and contracts rights, together with the proceeds thereof. The financing statements further stated in a separate paragraph that the proceeds of the collateral were covered and claimed.
In December 1965, Samel defaulted in the performance of the obligations imposed by the lease, but the lessor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Alcom America Corp.
...In re Collated Prods. Corp., 121 B.R. 195, 203-04 (D.Del.1990), aff'd mem., 937 F.2d 596 (3rd Cir.1991); United States v. Samel Refining Corp., 313 F.Supp. 684, 686-87 (E.D.Pa.1970); In re D.J. Maltese, Inc., 42 B.R. 589, 592-93 The instant case is analogous to these cases. The only differe......
-
American East India Corp. v. Ideal Shoe Co.
...includes "the account arising when the right to payment is earned under a contract right". Compare, United States v. Samel Refining Corporation, 313 F.Supp. 684, 687 (E.D. Pa.1970), aff'd, 461 F.2d 941 (3d Cir. 1972). We conclude, however, that, at least with regard to contract right collat......
-
Romano v. Verisign, Inc.
... ... Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-00549(AJT/IDD) United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria ... Plaintiff pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 58 ... --------- ... Notes: ... ...
-
United States v. Samel Refining Corporation, 19322.
...consume the entire fund. Since the facts were not in dispute, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court, 313 F. Supp. 684, ruled in favor of Drew, and the Government brought this In the district court the sole issue presented and discussed involved the determi......