DE LA METTRIE ET AL.
v.
DE GASQUET JAMES ET AL.; KEANE, RECEIVER, V. DE GASQUET JAMES ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
French citizens sought to recover funds seized by the Alien Property Custodian during World War I under the Trading with the Enemy Act, and a receiver appointed in New York sought to enforce judgments against a debtor by claiming an interest in those seized funds. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's dismissals, holding that the Trading with the Enemy Act prohibited the return of property to citizens of nations allied with the United States unless reciprocal rights were extended, and that funds held by the Custodian were exempt from liens, attachments, and court orders, placing neither the original claimants nor the receiver in a position to recover the seized property.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the Court.
The challenged decrees were entered March 2, 1925, 6 Fed. (2d) 479. Both causes had been heard upon a. single record.
In No. 54, appellants, citizens of France, sought to recover from the Alien Property Custodian certain-funds seized by him November 5, 1918, as the property of an alien enemy. They relied upon § 9, Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended June 5, 1920, c. 241, 41 Stat; 977. The court below held that the claim did not arise with reference to money or property held by the Custodian or by the Treasurer of the United States and affirmed the decree of the trial court which dismissed the bill. Banco Mexicano v. Deutsche Bank, 263 U. S. 591. Considering; the facts disclosed and the definite terms of the statute,, this action was clearly right. Subsection (e) of § 9-provides— “ No money or other property shall be returned nor any debt allowed under this section to any person who is a citizen or subject of any nation which was associated with the United States in the prosecution of the war, unless ;such nation in like case extends reciprocal rights to citizens of the United States; nor in any event shall a debt be allowed under this section unless it was owing to and owned by the claimant prior to October 6, 1917, and as to claimants other than citizens of the United States unless it arose with reference to the money or other property held by the Alien Property Custodian or Treasurer of the United States hereunder.”
No. 55 is a separate appeal by a receiver. • The appellants in No. 54 instituted in the Supreme Court, New York County, supplemental proceedings for the purpose of enforcing judgments which they held against Mrs. James and on June 18, 1923, that court appointed David Keane receiver of all the debtor’s property. Thereafter he asked to be made party to cause No. 54, claiming that by reason of such appointment he had an interest in the fund held by the Custodian. The-trial court denied this application and upon appeal the court below affirmed that action. The claim is without merit. Subsection (f) of § 9, Trading with the Enemy Act, provides: “ Except as herein provided, the money or other property .'conveyed, transferred, assigned, delivered, or paid to the Alien Property Custodian, shall'not be liable to lien, attachment,, garnishment, trustee process, or execution, or subject to any order or decree-of any court.” The' appointment of the receiver gave him no better position than the one occupied by the judgment creditors — the New York court had no jurisdiction over funds held by the Custodian.
The decrees below are
Affirmed.
In No. 55 Mr. Justice Brandéis, Mr. Justice Sanford and Mr. Justice Stone concur in the result.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Int'l Mortg. & Inv. Corp. (derivatively by Edward H. Heims v. Werner C. VON Clemm and Rayford W. Alley, 301 F.2d 857 (2d Cir. 1962)…it was established that the United States had not consented to suit by the judgment creditor of an alien to satisfy his debt from the vested property when the debt had not been incurred in connection with the vested property. De La Mettrie v. James, 272 U.S. 731, 47 S.Ct. 264, 71 L.Ed. 496 (1927). A fortiori, therefore, a receiver acting for the judgment creditor could not intervene as a party plaintiff in such an action, De La Mettrie, supra. All the above cases however stand only for the proposition th…
-
Berger v. Ruoff, 195 F.2d 775 (D.C. Cir. 1952)…o lien, attachment, garnishment, trustee process, or execution, or subject to any order or decree of any court.” We think the alleged lien invalid for this reason. Cf. La Mettrie v. James, 55 App.D.C. 354, 6 F. 2d 479, aff’d, De La Mettrie v. James, 272 U.S. 731, 47 S.Ct. 264, 71 L.Ed. 496. We need not consider whether it is invalid for other reasons. Affirmed.…
-
Norris v. Bergdoll (E.D. Pa. 1927)…old otherwise than we have. Among these eases are the following: Banco v. Bank, 263 U. S. 591, 44 S. Ct. 209, 68 L. Ed. 465; Reising v. Deutsche (C. C. A.) 15 F.(2d) 259; Wilson v. Miller (D. C.) 274 F. 808; De La Mettrie v. James (January 3, 1927), 47 S. Ct. 264, 71 L. Ed.-. No fact statement accompanies this report, but we read the opinion as indicating the ruling was not directed to the part of the act now under consideration. The motion for a reargument is denied, and the judgment originally allowed may…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Banco Mexicano de Commercio E Industria v. Deutsche Bank, 263 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1924)
- Edmond C. Fletcher v. Kellogg, 6 F.2d 479 (D.C. Cir. 1925)