Borough of Kenilworth v. Corwine

D. New Jersey

Borough of Kenilworth v. Corwine

96 F. Supp. 68, 43 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2400

CourtDistrict Court, D. New Jersey

DecidedMarch 7, 1951

DocketCiv. No. 880-50

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 96 F. Supp. 68 (Borough of Kenilworth v. Corwine) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Borough of Kenilworth v. Corwine, 96 F. Supp. 68, 43 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2400 (D.N.J. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

MEANEY, District Judge.

Plaintiff instituted this action in the Superior Court of -New Jersey, seeking strict foreclosure of fifteen tax sale certificates. The United States having removed the action to this court under the provisions of section 1444 of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S. C.A. § 1444, moves to dismiss on the ground that the jurisdictional requirements of Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 24.10, are not met.

Under a statute formerly in effect, substantially similar to that embodied in 28 U.S.C.A. § 2410, Judge Avis of this court held that consent to be "sued in a strict foreclosure proceeding had not been given by the United States, since the statute contemplated a judicial sale. Integrity Trust Co. v. United States, D.C.N.J. 1933, 3 F.Supp. 577. The United States, of course, cannot be made subject to suit unless the terms of its consent are strictly complied with. It follows, therefore, that this action must be dismissed as to the United States, and since the reason for removal no longer exists, the case will be remanded to the Superior Court of New Jersey.

Submit an order.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEANEY, District Judge.

Plaintiff instituted this action in the Superior Court of -New Jersey, seeking strict foreclosure of fifteen tax sale certificates. The United States having removed the action to this court under the provisions of section 1444 of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S. C.A. § 1444, moves to dismiss on the ground that the jurisdictional requirements of Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 24.10, are not met.

Under a statute formerly in effect, substantially similar to that embodied in 28 U.S.C.A. § 2410, Judge Avis of this court held that consent to be "sued in a strict foreclosure proceeding had not been given by the United States, since the statute contemplated a judicial sale. Integrity Trust Co. v. United States, D.C.N.J. 1933, 3 F.Supp. 577. The United States, of course, cannot be made subject to suit unless the terms of its consent are strictly complied with. It follows, therefore, that this action must be dismissed as to the United States, and since the reason for removal no longer exists, the case will be remanded to the Superior Court of New Jersey.

Submit an order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 F. Supp. 68, 43 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/borough-of-kenilworth-v-corwine-njd-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack