United States v. Snyder
Decision Date | 01 May 1893 |
Docket Number | No. 229,229 |
Citation | 37 L.Ed. 705,13 S.Ct. 846,149 U.S. 210 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. SNYDER et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Asst. Atty. Gen. Maury, for the United States.
B. F. Jonas, for appellees.
The facts of this case, as appearing by the record, are undisputed, and are as follows: Charles A. Snyder was, during the year 1878, engaged in the business of the manufacture of tobacco in the city of New Orleans, and while so engaged became indebted to the United States for internal revenue taxes in the sum of several thousand dollars; and these taxes were duly assessed and certified to the collector of internal revenue, who made demand for payment.
On the 20th day of November, 1879, at the time of such indebtedness and demand for payment, and for more than a year prior and subsequent to said date, the said Charles A. Snyder was the owner of certain pieces and parcels of real estate situated in the city of New Orleans, to wit, 9 several lots designated as Nos. 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, with the buildings and improvements thereon, in the square bounded by Peters, Erato, Gaiennie, and Tchoupitoulas streets; and by act of sale passed before Theodore Guyol, notary, on February 5, 1881, Charles A. Snyder sold, conveyed, and delivered, for valuable consideration, the said lots of ground to the International Cotton-Press Company, which has been ever since in the continuous use and occupation of the same.
On April 15, 1885, a bill of complaint was filed in the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana, against Charles A. Snyder, for the collection of said taxes. Nannie Mary Torian, wife of said Snyder, and the International Cotton-Press Company were named as codefendants with him; it being alleged in said bill that they claimed to have liens and interests in the said pieces or lots of ground.
Mrs. Snyder was not served with process, nor was any appearance entered for her. The cause was put at issue, and so proceeded in that a personal judgment was entered against Charles A. Snyder, and in favor of the United States, in the sum of $3,643.29, but the bill was dismissed as to the International Cotton-Press Company, and from this decree an appeal was taken to this court.
The assessment on which the lien for taxes was claimed in behalf of the United States was never filed or inscribed in the mortgage office of the parish of New Orleans, as required by the laws of the state of Louisiana in order to affect third persons; and the International Cotton-Press Company purchased the property on which said tax lien was claimed to exist for full value, in good faith, and in ignorance of the said alleged assessment.
Section 3371 of the Revised Statutes, section 14 of the act of March 1, 1879, under which the taxes in question were assessed, is in the following terms:
Section 3186 of the Revised Statutes, section 3 of the act of March 1, 1879, is as follows:
If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same after demand, the amount shall be a lien in favor of the United States from the time when the assessment list was received by the collector, except when otherwise provided, until paid, with the interest, penalties, and costs that may accrue in addition thereto, upon all property and rights to property belonging to such person.'
The method of remedy is provided by section 3207, Rev. St., as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Bond
...are not required. Section 6322, originally Act of July 13, 1866, ch. 184, 14 Stat. 107, was considered in United States v. Snyder, 1893, 149 U.S. 210, 13 S.Ct. 846, 37 L.Ed. 705, wherein the Supreme Court of the United States held that an unrecorded tax lien was valid against a purchaser wi......
-
U.S. v. Romani
...taxpayer's property was valid even against a bona fide purchaser who had no notice of the lien. United States v. Snyder, 149 U.S. 210, 213-215, 13 S.Ct. 846, 847-848, 37 L.Ed. 705 (1893). In 1913, Congress amended the statute to provide that the federal tax lien "shall not be valid as again......
-
Miners Sav. Bank of Pittston, Pa. v. United States
...24 F.2d 416; State of Michigan v. United States, 317 U.S. 338, 63 S. Ct. 302, 87 L.Ed. 312, and cases cited; United States v. Snyder, 149 U.S. 210, 13 S.Ct. 846, 37 L.Ed. 705; 9 Mertens Law of Fed. Income Taxation, § 54.42, pp. 607-608 and cases cited; contra, Trust Co. of Tex. v. United St......
-
Lewis v. Leon County
...text 104; Wheeling, Parkersburg & Cincinnati Transp. Co. v. City of Wheeling, 99 U.S. 273, text 281, 25 L.Ed. 412, text 415; United States v. Snyder, 149 U.S. 210, text 214, S.Ct. 846, 34 L.Ed. 705, text 707. The power of deciding what money shall be raised by taxation and what property or ......
-
Federal Tax Liens and the Unrecorded Divorce Decree
...Id.; cf. Bull v. United States, 295 U.S. 247, 259-60 (1935); Phillips v. Comm'r, 283 U.S. 589, 595-97 (1931); United States v. Snyder, 149 U.S. 210, 214-15 (1893). The IRS, unlike other creditors, taxes and does not extend credit. Boris I. Bittker and Lawrence Lokken, Federal Taxation of In......
-
Florida Exemptions and How the Same May Be Lost.
...the incidence of federal taxation. Korman v. I.R.S., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91046, 2007 WL 1206742 (S.D. Fla. 2007), and U.S. v. Snyder, 149 U.S. 210 (1893) (holding that state law cannot interfere with federal tax (57) 11 U.S.C. [section]522(o)(4). by Robert C. Meyer AUTHOR ROBERT C. MEYER ......