Source: https://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/254/554/case.php
Timestamp: 2020-05-28 11:22:36
Document Index: 24218330

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 17', '§ 17', '§ 17', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 9', '§ 7', '§ 9']

US Supreme Court Decisions On-Line> Volume 254 > CENTRAL UNION TRUST CO. V. GARVAN, 254 U. S. 554 (1921)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 254 U. S. 554
3. Under § 17 of the Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, chanrobles.com-red
265 F.4d 7, id. 481, affirmed.
These are libels brought by the Alien Property Custodian under the Trading with the Enemy Act October 6, 1917, c. 106, § 17, 40 Stat. 411, 425, to obtain possession of securities in the hands of the plaintiffs in error respectively as trustees. The libel in each case alleges that the Alien Property Custodian, after investigation, determined that a German insurance company named was an enemy not holding a license from the President, etc., that certain specified securities belonged to it or were held for its benefit by the party now appearing as a plaintiff in error in that case, and that a demand for the property had been made but not complied with. The libellant prayed an order directing the marshal to seize the property and citing claimants of a right to possession to show cause why the same should not be delivered to him. The plaintiffs in error appeared as claimants in their several cases, denied that the funds were held for the benefit of an enemy, and set up the trust under which they held chanrobles.com-red
them as required by the laws of Massachusetts or Connecticut for the security of American policyholders and creditors, with reasons for their right to retain the funds alleged in detail. The libellant moved for decrees for possession upon the pleadings which were granted by the district court. The decrees were affirmed by the circuit court of appeals, Garvan v. $20,000 Bonds, 265 F.4d 7; ibid., 481. As the decision of the latter Court is not made final by the statute, the cases have been brought on writ of error to this Court.
If the Custodian was entitled to demand the delivery of the property in question, it does not seem to need argument to show that the demand could be enforced by the district courts under § 17 of the act, giving to those courts jurisdiction to make all such orders and decrees as may chanrobles.com-red
If we look no further than § 7(c), it is plain that obedience to the statute requires an immediate transfer in any case within its terms, without awaiting a resort to the courts. The occasion of the duty is a demand after a determination by the President, and it is hard to give much meaning to the words "which the President after investigation shall determine is so . . . held" unless the determination and demand call the duty into being. The condition "after investigation" additionally points to the intent to make his act decisive upon the point, as it is in other cases mentioned in § 7(a). But it is said that the subject of the section is enemy property only, and therefore that the determination cannot be final in its effect. Day v. Micou, 18 Wall. 156. And it is true that it is not final against the claimant's rights. Upon surrender, the claimant may at once file a claim under § 9 if he satisfies the representative chanrobles.com-red
The argument on the original words of the Act in view of the manifest purpose seems to us to be strong, but it appears to us to be much strengthened by the amendments of later date. By the Act of November 4, 1918, c. 201, 40 Stat. 1020, § 7(c), was amended, among other things, by adding after the requirements of transfer "or the same may be seized by the Alien Property Custodian, and all property thus acquired shall be held, administered and disposed of as elsewhere provided in this Act." This shows clearly enough the peremptory character of this first step. It cannot be supposed that a resort to the Courts is to be less immediately effective than a taking with the strong hand. Clinkenbeard v. United States, 21 Wall. 65, has no application. That was debt on a bond for a tax, and turned on the right of the government to the tax, not on possession. By a later paragraph, "the sole relief and remedy of any person having any claim to any . . . property" transferred to the Custodian "or required so to be, or seized by him shall be that provided by the terms of this Act." The natural interpretation of this clause is that it refers to the remedies expressly provided, in this case by § 9; that property required to be transferred and property seized stand on the same footing, not that the resort by the Custodian chanrobles.com-red