Summary

Portrait of William O. Douglas William O. Douglas United States v. First National City Bank…

For the narrow issue for us is whether the creditor (the United States) may by injunction pendente lite protect whatever rights the debtor (Omar) may have against respondent who is before the court on personal service. If it were clear that the debtor (Omar) were beyond reach of the District Court so far as personal service is concerned, we would have quite a different case-one on which we intimate no opinion.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of William O. Douglas William O. Douglas United States v. First National City Bank…

We are advised that respondent's only debt to Omar is payable at respondent's branch in Montevideo. It is said that the United States, the creditor, can assert against respondent in New York only those rights that Omar, the debtor, has against respondent in New York and that under New York law a depositor in a foreign branch has an action against the head office only where there has been a demand and wrongful refusal at the foreign branch.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of William O. Douglas William O. Douglas United States v. First National City Bank…

And our review of the injunction as an exercise of the equity power granted by 26 U.S.C. § 7402 (a) must be in light of the public interest involved: 'Courts of equity may, and frequently do, go much farther both to give and withhold relief in furtherance of the public interest than they are accustomed to go when only private interests are involved.' Virginian R. Co.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature