United States v. Shofner Iron & Steel Works
| Decision Date | 17 May 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 11671.,11671. |
| Citation | 168 F.2d 286 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. SHOFNER IRON & STEEL WORKS. |
A. Devitt Vanech, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Roger P. Marquis, Wilma C. Martin and Thos. L. McKevitt, Attys., Dept. of Justice, all of Washington, D.C., and Henry L. Hess, U.S. Atty., of Portland, Ore., for appellant.
MacCormac Snow and Albert M. Hodler, both of Portland, Ore., for appellee.
Before HEALY, BONE and ORR, Circuit Judges.
The United States, appellant here, sued to recover possession of a parcel of real property located in Oregon. The facts pleaded in its complaint may be summarized thus: In 1942 Defense Plant Corporation leased the property in suit to appellee, herein referred to as Shofner. On July 1, 1945, Defense Plant Corporation was dissolved and its functions and assets were transferred to Reconstruction Finance Corporation pursuant to the Joint Resolution of June 30, 1945, 59 Stat. 310, 15 U.S.C.A. § 601 note. Reconstruction Finance terminated the lease in accordance with its terms, effective as of December 5, 1945, but consented to Shofner's remaining in possession until May 15, 1946. Subsequent to the latter date Shofner has continued in possession without right or authority. On May 24, 1946 Reconstruction Finance declared the premises and facilities surplus and transferred jurisdiction of the same to the War Assets Administration pursuant to the Surplus Property Act of October 3, 1944, 58 Stat. 765, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix § 1611 et seq., as amended, and regulations thereunder. The present suit was instituted in the name of the United States on August 12, 1946, praying judgment against Shofner for possession of the property.1
Shofner moved for a dismissal on the ground that the complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be had and that the United States was not the real party in interest. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the cause on the ground that Reconstruction Finance Corporation and not the United States was the real party in interest. This appeal followed.
The dismissal was error. Under the circumstances disclosed in its complaint at any rate there can be no doubt that the United States was entitled to sue in its own name. Reconstruction Finance Corporation is a wholly-owned agency of the government. Having declared the property surplus to its needs and responsibilities, that corporation retains no more than the barren legal title for the use of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Monolith Portland Mid. Co. v. Reconstruction F. Corp.
...all beneficial ownership to the United States and thereafter the defendant is merely a formal title holder. U. S. v. Shofner Iron & Steel Works, 9 Cir., 1948, 168 F.2d 286. Thus, the beneficial ownership of the plant was in the United States after September 14, 1950, and the appropriations ......
-
Pergament v. Frazer
...Property Act vested in War Assets Administration * * *." (General Services Administration.) Parenthesis ours. United States v. Shofner Iron & Steel Works, 9 Cir., 168 F.2d 286, 287. The court will and should not render a judgment that it cannot enforce. District of Columbia v. Eslin, 1901, ......
-
United States v. Tambasco
...conclusion I cited, and cite again, authorities to the effect that the United States is a proper plaintiff. United States v. Shofner Iron & Steel Works, 9 Cir., 168 F.2d 286, 287; Cherry Cotton Mills, Inc., v. United States, 327 U.S. 536, 539-540, 66 S.Ct. 729, 90 L.Ed. 835; United States v......
-
Rohr Aircraft Corp. v. San Diego County
...as holding no more than 'a bare legal title for the use of the United States.' 105 F.Supp. at page 1001; see United States v. Shofner Iron & Steel Works, 9 Cir., 168 F.2d 286. On the basis of this reasoning and the assumption that the RFC omitted to transfer title merely 'as a matter of con......