Damm v. U-Save Corp.

S.D. California

Damm v. U-Save Corp.

58 F.2d 416, 1932 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1197

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California

DecidedApril 16, 1932

DocketNo. U-72-H

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 58 F.2d 416 (Damm v. U-Save Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Damm v. U-Save Corp., 58 F.2d 416, 1932 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1197 (S.D. Cal. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

HOLLZER., District Judge. .

It being conceded, at the hearing, that the defendant owned no property within the city of Pasadena at the time of the appointment of the receiver, and it being further admitted that the assets in the hands of the receiver are insufficient to pay the claims of unsecured creditors in full, the application of said city for an order directing the receiver to pay in full its claim for the tax levied upon personal property owned, but disposed of, by said defendant prior to the appointment of the receiver, is denied. An exception is allowed to- the claimant city of Pasadena. See City of Richmond v. Bird et al, 249 U. S. 174, 39 S. Ct. 186, 63 L. Ed. 543; Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Bramwell (D. C.) 12 F.(2d) 307; Bignell v. Cummins, 69 Mont. 294, 222 P. 797, 36 A. L. R. 634; County of Glynn v. Brunswick Ter, Co., 101 Ga. 244, 28 S. E. 604; Edmonson v. Walker, 137 Tenn. 569; 195 S. W. 168; County Court of Calhoun County v. Matthews, 99 W. Ya. 483, 129 S. E. 399, 52 A. L. R. 751.

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

HOLLZER., District Judge. .

It being conceded, at the hearing, that the defendant owned no property within the city of Pasadena at the time of the appointment of the receiver, and it being further admitted that the assets in the hands of the receiver are insufficient to pay the claims of unsecured creditors in full, the application of said city for an order directing the receiver to pay in full its claim for the tax levied upon personal property owned, but disposed of, by said defendant prior to the appointment of the receiver, is denied. An exception is allowed to- the claimant city of Pasadena. See City of Richmond v. Bird et al, 249 U. S. 174, 39 S. Ct. 186, 63 L. Ed. 543; Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Bramwell (D. C.) 12 F.(2d) 307; Bignell v. Cummins, 69 Mont. 294, 222 P. 797, 36 A. L. R. 634; County of Glynn v. Brunswick Ter, Co., 101 Ga. 244, 28 S. E. 604; Edmonson v. Walker, 137 Tenn. 569; 195 S. W. 168; County Court of Calhoun County v. Matthews, 99 W. Ya. 483, 129 S. E. 399, 52 A. L. R. 751.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 F.2d 416, 1932 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/damm-v-u-save-corp-casd-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack