Ungar v. Higgins

S.D. New York

Ungar v. Higgins

27 F. Supp. 904, 23 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 552, 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2746

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided February 23, 1939·Published

Opinion

COXE, District Judge.

I think it is too clear even for argument that this complaint does not state a cause of action against the Collector. The plaintiff is a mere judgment creditor of the taxpayer, and in no position to challenge the seizure. I do not believe, either, that the plaintiff has any standing to maintain a suit to recover taxes erroneously collected from a third party.

The motion of the defendant to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency is granted.

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

COXE, District Judge.

I think it is too clear even for argument that this complaint does not state a cause of action against the Collector. The plaintiff is a mere judgment creditor of the taxpayer, and in no position to challenge the seizure. I do not believe, either, that the plaintiff has any standing to maintain a suit to recover taxes erroneously collected from a third party.

The motion of the defendant to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency is granted.

Ungar v. Higgins, 27 F. Supp. 904, 23 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 552, 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2746 (S.D.N.Y. 1939).

Pincite

27 F. Supp. 904 (Ungar v. Higgins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.