years the Government held possession of the premises.
The Petitioner contends that the Government would be unjustly enriched if it were allowed to deny reimbursement of the taxes, amounting to $ 3093.24, which were paid by the Petitioner.
If we accept the Government's theory of the case, we would be forced to hold than an admitted obligation of the United States is present, but that it is recoverable only by a party who cannot legally assert a claim for its payment.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The intent of Congress by this Anti-Assignment Act (31 U.S.C.A. § 203) was to protect the Government, and not the claimant, and to prevent frauds upon the Treasury. Price v. Forrest, 173 U.S. 410, 19 S. Ct. 434, 43 L. Ed. 749 (1899), and further, to prevent possible multiple payment of claims. United States v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 338 U.S. 366, 70 S. Ct. 207, 94 L. Ed. 171 (1949).
2. No fraud will result to the Government by reason of its payment to the Petitioner of this admitted debt.
3. Petitioner is the only claimant, hence the Government will not be embroiled in conflicting claims.
4. By reason of the Government's failure to pay these delinquent taxes, they became liens on the premises by operation of law.
5. Petitioner, in good faith and in protection of its interest in the property paid the incumbrances.
6. Purchasers of incumbered property who pay the claim or incumbrance, when justice and equity require it, may be subrogated to the rights of the claimholder. In re Bruce, 158 F. 123 (N.D.N.Y.1907), 35 P.L.E. Suretyship § 28.
7. Petitioner is subrogated to the previous owner's rights against the Government for reimbursement.
8. Subrogation claims are exempt from the provisions of the Anti-Assignment Act. United States v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 338 U.S. 366, 70 S. Ct. 207, 94 L. Ed. 171 (1949).
AND NOW, this 21st day of February, 1963, the Government is ordered to pay the Petitioner's claim in the sum of $ 3093.24.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.