The Court, accordingly, finds for the defendant.
Considerable confusion appears in the record in this case because of failure of counsel to distinguish between the several docket numbers assigned to the various cases by the Internal Revenue Service. The Court believes that if all of the exhibits offered in evidence are organized and considered with reference to the individual case in which they appear, apparent ambiguity and conflict is eliminated.
The Court also directs attention to the fact that the Court's determinations as manifest by the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the case of Kennedy v. The Puritan Church, C.A. 4415-54, create a status of res judicata as to those specific matters. In addition, the Court points out that in a counter-claim which is part of the defendants' answer in that case, which answer was filed on November 4, 1954, these defendants in their present capacities sought relief from the same transaction which is the subject matter of the present complaint. The Court emphasizes that in the Kennedy case the plaintiffs had an opportunity to adjudicate the issues of the present case but failed to do so, and the Court must therefore rule that the present action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
There is a further aspect of this case which requires the Court's consideration. Ordinarily, when a motion is made during the preliminary stages of a case, the ruling upon that motion becomes the law of the case. In the present proceeding, the defendant by motion to dismiss raised the question of the jurisdiction of the Court. A ruling upon this motion by another judge of the Court was adverse to the present defendant. The government has maintained its position that the Court is without jurisdiction to try the case, and the Court, consequently, is confronted with the necessity of making a re-evaluation of the Court's jurisdiction. This situation arises because of course if there is no jurisdiction in the case, the matter is a continuing one, and the jurisdiction issue is not clarified by any prior ruling of the Court if jurisdiction does not in fact exist. The Court is of the opinion that the Court is without jurisdiction to try this case. The Court relies upon the cases of Seattle Association of Credit Men v. United States, 9 Cir., 240 F.2d 906; Wells v. Long, 9 Cir., 162 F.2d 842; First National Bank of Brownsville v. United States, D.C., 172 F.Supp. 757; Remis v. United States, D.C., 172 F.Supp. 732, 733.
Counsel will submit appropriate findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment effectuating the Court's ruling.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.