Ready to print. Press Ctrl+P (⌘+P on Mac), or
CaseSearchBETA
Open CaseSearch appOpen app

Gallatin v. Sherman

Not specified
Decided Filed Not specifiedCircuit Court, S.D. New York
Disposition
denied
full scope · unanimous
Scan to open on mobileScan to open on another device
Court
District Court for the Second Judicial District in the City of New York
Filed
Not specified
Decided
Judge
LACOMBE, Circuit Judge
Posture
Summary proceeding for recovery of premises (dispossess proceeding) pending in state court
Plaintiff (1)
Gallatin (landlord)
William H. Harris
v.
Defendantss (4)
Sherman et al. (including John A. Mason, collector of internal revenue, and Charles O'Reilly, storekeeper)
Max J. Kohler, Asst. U.S. Atty.
Other parties: Peter H. McNulty — Assignee for the benefit of creditors of John D.W. Sherman, John D.W. Sherman — Lessee/tenant

Overview

The motion to remand is denied. The federal court retains jurisdiction under Rev. St. § 643, but will arrange for a hearing allowing the landlord summary disposition of the dispossess proceeding, with defendants required to present defenses on four days' notice.

Case summary

This case involves a summary dispossess proceeding by landlord Gallatin against tenant Sherman for nonpayment of rent at premises used as a bonded warehouse under U.S. revenue laws. The landlord joined federal officers (collector of internal revenue and storekeeper) as undertenants. The officers removed the case to federal circuit court under Rev. St. § 643. The landlord moved to remand to state court, arguing the proceeding did not involve rights under revenue laws and officers lacked sufficient interest. The circuit court denied the motion, holding the proceeding was removable as a suit against federal officers acting under revenue laws, given the bonded warehouse status and federal interest in protecting tax liens. The court retained jurisdiction but arranged for summary disposition similar to state procedures.

Abstract

Landlord initiated a summary dispossess proceeding against tenant for nonpayment of rent at a bonded warehouse under revenue laws, joining federal officers as undertenants. Federal officers removed the case to federal court, and the court denied the landlord's motion to remand, holding it removable due to the federal interest in protecting tax liens on the premises. The court retained jurisdiction and arranged for a summary hearing akin to state procedures, requiring defendants to present defenses on short notice.

Opinion of the court

Majority
opinionLACOMBE, Circuit Judge
  • Motion to remand denied
  • Proceeding removable under Rev. St. § 643 as suit against federal officers
  • Federal court retains jurisdiction
  • Arrangements made for summary disposition similar to state procedures

Jurisdiction

challenged
Statutory basis
Rev. St. § 643
Subject matter
Federal question jurisdiction based on removal under revenue laws
Jurisdictional holding
Motion to remand denied; federal court retains jurisdiction under Rev. St. § 643
Jurisdictional facts
  • Premises used as a bonded warehouse under U.S. revenue laws
  • Government officers (collector and storekeeper) made parties defendant
  • Action involves rights claimed under federal revenue laws

Procedural posture

Posture at trial
Summary proceeding for recovery of premises (dispossess proceeding) pending in state court
Posture on appeal
Motion to remand after removal to federal court
Preserved issues
  • Whether proceeding is removable under Rev. St. § 643
  • Whether federal officers have sufficient interest to seek removal

Subsequent history

Petition for rehearing
not filed
Rehearing en banc
not filed
Petition for certiorari
not filed
Remand proceedings
Not specified
Mandate issued
Not specified

Legal categories

BusinessEstate Planning and Real Estate

Case record

Full case name
GALLATIN v. SHERMAN et al.
Docket number
Not specified
Court
Circuit Court, S.D. New York
Trial court
District Court for the Second Judicial District in the City of New York
Trial court judge
Not specified
Filed
Not specified
Decided
Opinion author
LACOMBE, Circuit Judge
Opinion type
published
Precedential status
precedential
Judges on panel
LACOMBE, Circuit Judge

Issues & holdings

2
Issues raised
2
affirmed
2
Holdings
Standard of review

de novo

Disposition rationale

Proceeding involves federal officers claiming rights under revenue laws, making it removable under § 643

Preservation

Issue preserved for review

Standard of review

de novo

Disposition rationale

Officers have right, title, and authority under revenue laws as custodians of bonded warehouse

Preservation

Issue preserved for review

Holdings of the court

Removability of dispossess proceeding
The summary proceeding is removable to federal court under Rev. St. § 643 as a suit against federal officers acting under authority of revenue laws
The bonded warehouse status creates federal interest; officers claim rights under revenue laws; proceeding qualifies as 'civil suit' under § 643
unanimousbinding precedent
Federal court jurisdiction retention
Federal court retains jurisdiction but will provide summary disposition similar to state procedures
Court arranges hearing to allow landlord summary disposition while protecting federal interests under revenue laws
unanimousbinding precedent

Statutory interpretation

2
Statute
Rev. St. § 643
Question
Whether summary dispossess proceeding qualifies as 'suit' removable when against federal officers acting under revenue laws
Court's reading
Yes, proceeding is a 'civil suit' under § 643 when it involves federal officers claiming rights under revenue laws
Canons applied
Plain meaningPurpose-based interpretation
no legislative history
Statute
1 Supp. Rev. St. p. 139
Question
Control of bonded warehouse by collector and storekeeper
Court's reading
Statute gives collector control and joint custody with storekeeper, creating federal interest
Canons applied
Plain meaning
no legislative history

Burden of proof

Prosecution burden
Not applicable (civil proceeding)
Defence burden
Not applicable

Standards of review

  • Removability under Rev. St. § 643 — de novo Legal question of statutory interpretation and jurisdiction reviewed de novo

Timeline

3
Events
1,344
Days, incident to ruling
—
Span
factual eventcited in opinion

Premises established as special bonded warehouse for fruit brandy with approval of commissioner and collector of internal revenue

Outcome: Warehouse established under federal revenue laws

Created federal interest in premises subject to government lien for taxes

Removability under Rev. St. § 643
Sherman (tenant) · Commissioner of internal revenue · Collector of internal revenue Premises No. 1 Front street not applicable
procedural eventcited in opinion

U.S. circuit court ordered removal of case from state district court to federal circuit court under Rev. St. § 643

Outcome: Removal granted, writ of certiorari issued

Case transferred to federal jurisdiction based on federal officer involvement

Jurisdiction under Rev. St. § 643
Judge Lacombe · John A. Mason (collector) · Charles O'Reilly (storekeeper) · Wallace Macfarlane (U.S. attorney) U.S. Circuit Court for Southern District of New York appellate court
rulingcited in opinion

Circuit court denied motion to remand and retained jurisdiction, arranging for summary disposition similar to state procedures

Outcome: Motion to remand denied

Federal court affirmed jurisdiction over dispossess proceeding involving federal officers

Removability under Rev. St. § 643
Judge Lacombe · William H. Harris (plaintiff's attorney) · Max J. Kohler (government attorney) Circuit Court, S.D. New York appellate court

Facts & evidence

Incident

Date
Not specified
Location
Premises No. 1 Front street, used as bonded warehouse

Key facts

5 facts
  1. Landlord initiated summary proceeding for nonpayment of rent against tenant Sherman
  2. Premises established as special bonded warehouse for fruit brandy in April 1893 with government approval
  3. Government officers (collector and storekeeper) joined as undertenants holding over
  4. Over $100,000 worth of property subject to government tax lien stored on premises
  5. Proceedings removed to federal circuit court under Rev. St. § 643

Disputed questions

  • Whether government officers have right, title, or authority under revenue laws to justify removal
  • Whether dispossess proceeding qualifies as 'suit' under Rev. St. § 643
  • Whether adequate remedies exist for government under other statutes

Procedural history

4 steps
  1. Proceedings filed in district court for Second judicial district
  2. Removed to U.S. circuit court on October 28, 1896
  3. Landlord moved to remand case to state court
  4. Circuit court denied motion to remand on December 5, 1896

Evidence in the record

Direct
  • Petition for removal verified by collector John A. Mason
  • Lease agreement for premises
  • Approval documents for bonded warehouse establishment
Physical
  • Premises No. 1 Front street
  • Property stored in bonded warehouse
Documentary
  • Rev. St. §§ 643, 934, 3272, 3296, 3300
  • 1 Supp. Rev. St. p. 139-140
  • District court records
Circumstantial
  • Presence of $100,000 worth of property subject to government lien
  • Control of warehouse by collector and storekeeper under statutes

Objects of relevance

Premises No. 1 Front street (bonded warehouse location)Fruit brandy and property worth over $100,000 stored in warehouse

Policy considerations

  • Protection of federal revenue interests
  • Avoiding conflict between state and federal jurisdiction
  • Ensuring federal officers can perform duties under revenue laws without state interference

Authorities

Cited authorities (5)

Rev. St. § 643
appliedprecedent
Statute authorizing removal of suits against federal officers acting under revenue laws
McCullough v. Large, 20 Fed. 309
followedprecedent
Cited as authority that summary proceedings are civil suits under removal statutes
Fischer v. Daudistal, 9 Fed. 145
followedprecedent
Cited on jurisdiction over property under revenue laws
Searl v. School Dist. No. 2, 124 U.S. 197
followedprecedent
Cited on definition of civil suit for removal purposes
Rev. St. § 934
appliedprecedent
Statute giving federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over property under revenue laws

Related cases (9)

McCullough v. Large, 20 Fed. 309
precedent
Cited as authority that summary proceedings are civil suits under removal statutes
Fischer v. Daudistal, 9 Fed. 145
precedent
Cited on jurisdiction over property under revenue laws
Peyton v. Bliss, Woolw. 170, Fed. Cas. No. 11,055
precedent
Cited on nature of summary proceedings
Searl v. School Dist. No. 2, 124 U.S. 197
precedent
Cited on civil suit definition
Harris v. Dennie, 3 Pet. 292
precedent
Cited on federal jurisdiction over revenue matters
In re Fassett, 142 U.S. 479
precedent
Cited on federal control of bonded property
Wood v. Matthews, 2 Blatchf. 370
precedent
Cited on procedural aspects of removal
Van Zandt v. Maxwell, 2 Blatchf. 421
precedent
Cited on removal procedures
Buttner v. Miller, 1 Woods, 620
precedent
Cited on suits against officers officially

Statutes

  • Rev. St. § 643 (removal for suits against federal officers)
  • Rev. St. § 934 (exclusive federal jurisdiction over property under revenue laws)
  • 1 Supp. Rev. St. p. 139 (control of bonded warehouse)
  • Rev. St. §§ 3272, 3296, 3300 (revenue enforcement provisions)

Standards & doctrines

  • De novo review for jurisdictional questions
  • Federal officer removal doctrine under Rev. St. § 643

Legal principles applied

  • Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over property taken under revenue laws per Rev. St. § 934
  • Proceedings against federal officers acting under revenue laws are removable to federal court

Notable quotes

“The motion to remand is denied.”
LACOMBE, Circuit Judge — Opening sentence of opinion denying landlord's motion to return case to state court
Direct disposition of the central issue on appeal
“In retaining jurisdiction, however, this court will so arrange for hearing that the landlord may obtain a summary disposition of the case such as the state statutes give him.”
LACOMBE, Circuit Judge — Explanation of how federal court will handle the dispossess proceeding after denying remand
Shows court balancing federal jurisdiction with state procedural rights
Index terms67
Summary terms
Legal mechanisms
Various actions
Various actors
Legal concepts
Legal outcomes
Legal issues
Legal procedures
Legal remedies
Legal evidence
Legal arguments
Legal defenses
Legal penalties
Legal procedural steps
Geo locations
Judges
Attorneys
Procedural terms
Substantive offenses
Entities and documentation
Legal actions
Action type
denied
Target
Motion to remand case to state court
Appealed from
Landlord's motion in federal circuit court
Context
Court denied motion to remand, retaining federal jurisdiction under Rev. St. § 643
Scope
full
Further instructions
Arrange hearing for summary disposition similar to state procedures, with defendants to present defenses on four days' notice
Disposition vote
unanimous
Action type
affirmed
Target
Removal to federal court under Rev. St. § 643
Appealed from
State district court proceeding
Context
Court affirmed removal was proper as suit against federal officers acting under revenue laws
Scope
full
Disposition vote
unanimous
Physical materials
Search facets
Parties
Courts
Locations
Statutes cited