Herbert A. Howard and Dorothy B. Howard v. H. Claude Hudson, M. Earl Grant, Frank C. Noon, Flora C. Grant and J. P. Taylor

259 F.2d 29 Herbert A. HOWARD and Dorothy B. Howard, Appellants, v. H. Claude HUDSON, M. Earl Grant, Frank C. Noon, Flora C. Grant and J. P. Taylor, Appellees. No. 15460. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. June 30, 1958, Rehearing Denied Nov. 7, 1958. Maury, Larsen & Hunt, (by John S. Hunt), Los Angeles, Cal., for appellants. Sylvester Hoffman, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellees. Before STEPHENS, Chief Judge, and BONE and CHAMBERS, Circuit Judges. STEPHENS, Chief Judge. 1 This action was originally filed in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles, but was removed to the United States District Court on the ground that Frank C. Noon, a defendant, was an officer of an agency in the Executive Branch of the Government of the United States, that is, Supervisory Agent for the Home Loan Bank Board, and that all acts done by him were done as an officer of the United States. Jurisdiction in the United States District Court was claimed under 28 U.S.C.A. 1442(a)(1). 2 In the complaint originally filed, the plaintiffs set forth four causes of action, but the appeal now before us relates only to the third cause of action. The Complaint 3…

This action was originally filed in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles, but was removed to the United States District Court on the ground that Frank U. Noon, a defendant, was an officer of an agency in the Executive Branch of the Government of the United States, that is, Supervisory Agent for the Home Loan Bank Board, and that all acts done Tby him were done as an officer of the United States. Jurisdiction in the United States District Court was claimed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1442 (a) (1).

In the complaint originally filed, the plaintiffs set forth four causes of action, h>ut the appeal now before us relates -only to the third cause of action.

The Complaint

It is alleged in the complaint that the plaintiff, Dorothy Howard, owns certain real property in Los Angeles, and that in 1948 she secured a loan from the Broadway Federal Savings and Loan Association and executed a promissory note secured by a deed of trust on the property. It is then alleged that the defendants unjustly, maliciously and unlawfully conspired to deprive plaintiff of her real property and caused to be prepared and recorded in the Los Angeles County Recorder’s…

(concurring).

I concur in the result.