LYON, SUPERINTENDENT OF BANKS,
v.
SINGER
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.
The Court held that the New York Court of Appeals' judgments were not inconsistent with federal law regarding frozen alien property and affirmed the judgments.
Claimants sought to collect preferred claims under New York Banking Law from a statutory bank liquidator, arising from transactions with a Japanese co…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Alien Property Custodian cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
Certiorari was granted in these cases to review federal issues respecting the administration of frozen alien property. 339 U. S. 902.
The cases arose from suits brought by claimants Singer and Banque Mellie Iran to collect from a statutory bank liquidator claims allegedly entitled to a preference under New York Banking Law § 606, arising from transactions with a Japanese corporation, blocked under Executive Orders Nos. 8389, 5 Fed. Reg. 1400; 8832, 6 Fed. Reg. 3715. The New York Court of Appeals held that the transactions gave rise to a preferred claim in the liquidation but that payment by the liquidator must await specific licensing by the Alien Property Custodian of the transactions underlying the claims. Singer v. Yokohama Specie Bank, Ltd., 293 N. Y. 542, 58 N. E. 2d 726, 299 N. Y. 113, 85 N. E. 2d 894; Banque Mellie Iran v. Yokohama Specie Bank, Ltd., 299 N. Y. 139, 85 N. E. 2d 906.
Those opposed to the judgments urge that, as a matter of federal law, the freezing order prevented the creation of any claim recognizable under § 606 of the New York Banking Law.
Oral argument and study of the record have convinced us that the judgments of the New York Court of Appeals are not inconsistent with the First War Powers Act of 1941, § 301, 55 Stat. 839, or the above Executive Orders. We accept the New York court’s determination that under New York law these claims arose from transactions in New York and were entitled to a preference. Since the New York court conditioned enforcement of the claims upon licensing by the Alien Property Custodian, federal control over alien property remains undiminished. Our decision in Propper v. Clark, 337 U. S. 472, does not require a contrary conclusion. There the liquidator claimed title to frozen assets adversely to the Custodian, and sought to deny the Custodian’s paramount power to vest the alien property in the United States. No such result follows from the New York court’s judgments in the present cases.
Since we further agree that, at the time the New York judgments were entered, no licenses had been issued to these claimants, we affirm the judgments below.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter is of the opinion that since the federal question in Nos. 513 and 528 has been eliminated by the license granted by the Director, Office of Alien Property, no jurisdiction to review remains in this Court. Therefore, the writs of certiorari in these two cases should be dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zittman v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 446 (U.S. 1951)…e proper course [*468] would be to insert in the decree a modifying proviso to the effect that “no lien or other interest, except as between the debtor and creditor, was obtained by the attachment proceedings in the state court.” See Lyon v. Singer, 339 U. S. 841. In my judgment a valid state attachment, obtained subsequent to the blocking order, is good as between an alien and his creditors. I am also sure that such an attachment has no compelling power upon the Attorney General in his administration of th…1 / 3
-
Carr v. Yokohama Specie Bank, 200 F.2d 251 (9th Cir. 1952)…y, Inc., 28 Cal.2d 154, 168 P. 2d 946; Beeler v. American Trust Co., 24 Cal.2d 1, 147 P. 2d 583; Stromerson v. Averill, 22 Cal. 2d 808, 141 P. 2d 732. . Propper v. Clark, Attorney General, 337 U.S. 472, 69 S.Ct. 1333, 93 L.Ed. 1480; Lyon v. Singer, 339 U.S. 841, 70 S.Ct. 903, 94 L.Ed. 1323, and Zittman v. Mc-Grath, Attorney General, 341 U.S. 446, 71 S.Ct. 832, 95 L.Ed. 1096.…
-
Orvis v. Brownell, 345 U.S. 183 (U.S. 1953)…Uebersee Finanz-Korp., 332 U. S. 480), or under § 34 for recovery of a debt, or both. We have been meticulous in protecting the right of the Custodian to possession of assets which have been vested. Propper v. Clark, 337 U. S. 472; Lyon v. Singer, 339 U. S. 841; Zittman v. McGrath, 341 U. S. 471. But we have also been meticulous to respect liens and preferences obtained in judicial or administrative proceedings so long as the enforcement of those hens did not interfere with the Custodian’s administration.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Propper v. Clark, 337 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1949)
- In re Schamus, 339 U.S. 902 (U.S. 1950)
- Bell v. Singer, 339 U.S. 902 (U.S. 1950)