United States v. Arms Textile Manufacturing Co.

200 F. Supp. 102, 1961 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2873
CourtDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire
DecidedJuly 13, 1961
DocketCiv. A. No. 2147
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 200 F. Supp. 102 (United States v. Arms Textile Manufacturing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Arms Textile Manufacturing Co., 200 F. Supp. 102, 1961 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2873 (D.N.H. 1961).

Opinion

CONNOR, District Judge.

There appears to be no dispute in the facts disclosed in the pleadings and the pertinent question is whether the proposed intervener is entitled to any relief under Rule 24(a) (3), Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 28 U.S.C.A. The sole issue is whether the levy which was concededly made was sufficient to entitle the government to the funds without further action thereon. It is my view that the United States, in dealing with an intangible, has done everything that was necessary and possible under its Notice of Levy. I am constrained to adopt the holding of United States v. Eiland, 4 Cir., 223 F.2d 118, for the purpose of acting on this petition and rule that the notice served on the debtor did, in fact, take into possession the funds sought. Such precluded any interest or right the petitioner could have in the pending action.

The petition to intervene is denied.

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

Related

In re San Fernando Valley Restaurants, Inc.
236 F. Supp. 777 (S.D. California, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
200 F. Supp. 102, 1961 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-arms-textile-manufacturing-co-nhd-1961.