United States v. Tieger, Civ. No. 914-53.
| Decision Date | 18 November 1954 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 914-53. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Martin TIEGER, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
Raymond Del Tufo, Jr., U. S. Atty., Newark, N. J., for plaintiff.
This is a civil action under Sections 231 and 232 of Title 31 U.S.C.A. The complaint contains seven counts, each of which purportedly states a separate claim based on the provisions of the former section. The action is before the Court on the motion of the defendant to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., rule 12(b) (6), 28 U.S.C.A.
The pertinent provisions of Section 231, upon which the claims are based, read as follows: "Any person * * *, who shall make or cause to be made, or present or cause to be presented, for payment or approval, to or by any person or officer in the civil, * * * service of the United States, any claim upon or against the government of the United States, or any department or officer thereof, knowing such claim to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent, or who, for the purpose of obtaining or aiding to obtain the payment or approval of such claim, makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, any false bill, receipt, voucher, roll, account, claim, certificate, affidavit, or deposition, knowing the same to contain any fraudulent or fictitious statement or entry, * * *, shall forfeit and pay to the United States the sum of $2000, and, in addition, double the amount of damages which the United States may have sustained by reason of the doing or committing such act, together with the costs of suit; and such forfeiture and damages shall be sued for in the same suit." (Emphasis by the Court.)
Each of counts 1 to 5, inclusive, asserts only a claim for statutory damages in the amount of $2,000. These counts allege generally: (a) that the General Union Mortgage Company was a financial institution qualified and eligible for credit insurance against losses sustained as a result of loans, authorized and empowered as such by the Federal Housing Administrator; (b) that the defendant, for and on behalf of named clients, caused to be made and presented to the said institution applications for "Property Improvement Loans"; (c) that statements contained in the credit applications were false and fraudulent and known by the defendant to be false and fraudulent; (d) that the loans were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- United States v. Maryland State Licensed Bev. Ass'n
-
Keystone Tankship Corp. v. Willamette Iron & Steel Co.
...libel in this case constituted a "claim". Ippolito v. Mayor of City of Hoboken, 60 N.J.Super. 477, 159 A.2d 425, 430; U. S. v. Tieger (D.C.N.J.1954) 138 F. Supp. 709, 710; Stewart v. McCollister, Cal.App. 220 P.2d 618, The actual intent and meaning at the time of executing the Indemnity Agr......
-
United States v. Brethauer
...United States v. Elliott, D.C.N.Cal.1962, 205 F.Supp. 581 (involving a case quite close to the facts here alleged); United States v. Tieger, D.C.N.J.1954, 138 F.Supp. 709, affirmed 3 Cir. 1956, 234 F.2d 589, cert. denied 352 U.S. 941, 77 S.Ct. 262, 1 L.Ed.2d 237 (1956); and United States v.......
-
United States v. Farina, Civ. No. 124-57.
...the issues raised by this motion. The defendants' argument in support of the motion rests heavily upon the authority of United States v. Tieger, D.C., 138 F. Supp. 709, affirmed, 3 Cir., 1956, 234 F. 2d 589, certiorari denied 352 U.S. 941, 77 S.Ct. 262, 1 L.Ed.2d 237, whereas, the Governmen......