United States v. Solon

Decision Date19 June 1968
Docket NumberNo. C-19550.,C-19550.
Citation294 F. Supp. 880
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. John SOLON, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

Joseph P. Hoey, U. S. Atty., for Eastern Dist. of New York, Brooklyn, N. Y., for plaintiff, Stuart C. Goldberg, Asst. U. S. Atty., of counsel.

Henry G. Singer, Brooklyn, N. Y., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WEINSTEIN, District Judge.

In 1959 a civil judgment for $22,704.11 was entered against defendant based upon his failure to pay wagering taxes from 1951 to 1953. Defendant agreed to liquidate this judgment by monthly payments of $7.50. Apparently he has made these payments, for the judgment, with interest, some ten years later has been reduced to $22,171.40.

The government has issued a subpoena requiring the judgment debtor to be examined in supplementary proceedings to determine whether his assets permit more expeditious payment of his debt. Predicated upon the wagering self-incrimination cases, the debtor moves (1) to vacate the judgment, (2) for return by the government of money paid on the judgment and, (3) for vacation of the subpoena issued against him. Defendant's motions must be denied.

Whether the underlying substantive theory in a civil action is valid or invalid, a money judgment obtained from a competent court operating in accordance with minimum standards of procedural due process extinguishes and supercedes the original claim. Restatement of Judgments, §§ 45, 47 (1942); Collins v. City of Wichita, Kansas, 254 F.2d 837 (10th Cir. 1958) (subsequent decisions of Supreme Court held procedure under which judgment obtained did not comply with due process). Cf. Polites v. United States, 364 U.S. 426, 433, 81 S.Ct. 202, 5 L.Ed.2d 173 (1960) (prospective change in status as citizen; modification in substantive law after judgment); Lehman Co. of America v. Appleton Toy & Furniture Co., 148 F.2d 988 (7th Cir. 1945) (power to modify equitable decree in patent infringement action); Restatement of Judgments § 46 (1942). As the comment to section 47 of the Restatement of Judgments puts the matter:

"Where the plaintiff has obtained a valid and final personal judgment against the defendant, he can maintain further proceedings for the enforcement of the judgment in the State which rendered it. In such proceedings the defendant cannot collaterally attack the judgment. It is immaterial whether the judgment was erroneous, provided that it was not void because the court lacked jurisdiction or denied due process."

Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • United States v. Malnik
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • February 8, 1974
    ...963; In re Turner, 309 F.2d 69, 71 (2nd Cir., 1962); Landy v. United States, 283 F.2d 303, 304 (5th Cir., 1960); United States v. Solon, 294 F.Supp. 880, 882 (E.D.N.Y., 1968), aff'd 405 F.2d 1211, 1212 (2nd Cir., 1968). On the basis of a record thus established, a reviewing court could scru......
  • Capitol Products Corporation v. Hernon, 71-1304.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • March 8, 1972
    ...which it sustains or rejects the defendant's objection to a particular question. See, Daly v. United States, supra; United States v. Solon, 294 F.Supp. 880, 882 (E.D.N.Y.), aff'd per curiam, 405 F.2d 1211 (2nd Cir. 1968). Cf., American Cyanamid Company v. Sharff, 309 F.2d 790 (3rd Cir. Reve......
  • Big Apple Concrete Corp. v. Abrams
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • October 30, 1984
    ...479, 71 S.Ct. 814, 95 L.Ed. 1118; United States v. Malnik, 5th Cir., 489 F.2d 682; United States v. Ponder, 475 F.2d 37; United States v. Solon, 294 F.Supp. 880, aff'd, 2nd Cir., 405 F.2d 1211.) None of the individual petitioners herein have asserted the Fifth Amendment personally but have ......
  • Commissioner of Labor v. Hinman
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • July 5, 1984
    ...subject to collateral attack (Matter of Foy v. Schechter, 1 N.Y.2d 604, 612, 154 N.Y.S.2d 927, 136 N.E.2d 883; see, also, United States v. Solon, 294 F.Supp. 880, affd. 405 F.2d 1211). We recognize the general rule that relief from a judgment may only be sought from the court which rendered......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT