Lavino

This is an appeal from a judgment which denied appellants recovery for the alleged seizure of their property by the Collector of Internal Revenue to satisfy the taxes of another person 1 and *911 from the denial of appellants’ motion for a new trial. The district court granted a motion to dismiss at the conclusion of appellants’ case on the ground that they had failed to prove that the Collector had seized their property. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 41(b), 28 U.S. C.A. Appellants contend that they made a prima facie showing of this fact, that this showing was not overcome by the Collector, and that the findings of the district court were “clearly erroneous,” F.R.C.P. 52(a), and further that new evidence offered on the denied motion for a new trial reinforced their contention of the sufficiency of the evidence.

Appellants sold a bar and restaurant to the S.J.R. Corporation on January 3, 1951. Although the liquor inventory was not included in the sale it remained on the premises locked in a storeroom. Unknown to appellants, the Collector of Internal Revenue seized certain personal property in the possession of the S.J.R. Corporation on July 24, 1951, including a liquor inventory. The…