Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

UNITED STATES v. GOLDBERG

June 14, 1956

UNITED STATES of America
v.
Harry H. GOLDBERG and J. Jacob Shannon & Co., a Corporation



The opinion of the court was delivered by: DUSEN

The amended complaint contains two alleged causes of action and each will be treated separately.

 I. The First Cause of Action

 The first cause of action is based on 31 U.S.C.A. § 231-232. *fn1" Defendants have presented to the court no matters outside of the pleadings; therefore, all well-pleaded allegations of the complaint must be deemed admitted for the purposes of this motion. Noerr Motor Freight v. Eastern R.R. Presidents Conference, D.C.E.D.Pa.1953, 113 F.Supp. 737, 742

 Briefly stated, the facts allegedly constituting the first cause of action are as follows:

 1. Defendant J. Jacob Shannon & Co. (hereinafter called Shannon) leased to the Office of Surplus Property of the United States Government a certain warehouse in the City of Philadelphia.

 2. The lease was for the period commencing July 16, 1945, and ending June 30, 1946; the annual rental consideration thereunder was $ 30,000, payable in monthly instalments of $ 2,500 each.

 3. The lease was signed by defendant Harry H. Goldberg, the President of Shannon, and W. R. Thomas, Jr., Acting Regional Director, Region No. 3, Office of Surplus Property.

 4. At the time the lease was entered into, Goldberg knew that the Government was prohibited by law from entering into a lease wherein the annual rental to be paid by it was in excess of 15% of the 'fair market value' of the property.

 5. During the lease negotiations, Goldberg represented the fair market value of the property as $ 200,000 when, in fact, said value was 'substantially less' and Goldberg knew this.

 6. Pursuant to requests of representatives of the Office of Surplus Property, Goldberg submitted two written appraisals of the property to the Government, both stating that its value was in excess of $ 200,000.

 7. The written appraisal made by one Harry Stein represented that said Stein was the licensed appraiser for certain banks. This statement was false and Goldberg knew it to be false.

 8. Also, Goldberg submitted to the Government a letter addressed to him by a Philadelphia real estate dealer; this letter stated that the dealer had a client who was interested in purchasing the property for $ 200,000. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.