Case Name: Margot VON OPEL, Appellant, v. Fritz VON OPEL, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1958-06-19
Citations: 257 F.2d 666
Docket Number: No. 14052
Parties: Margot VON OPEL, Appellant, v. Fritz VON OPEL, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 257
Pages: 666–667

Head Matter:
Margot VON OPEL, Appellant, v. Fritz VON OPEL, Appellee.
No. 14052.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued May 15, 1958.
Decided June 19, 1958.
Petition for Rehearing Denied Sept. 4, 1958.
Mr. Alfred J. Jollon, New York City, of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Mr. Russell Hardy, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant. Mr. Russell Hardy, Jr., Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellant.
Mr. Chester C. Shore, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Jack Wasser-man and David Carliner, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before Edgerton, Chief Judge, and Martin, Circuit Judge of the Sixth Circuit, and Fahy, Circuit Judge.
Sitting by designation pursuant to the provisions of Section 291(a), Title 28, U.S.Code.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant sued in the District of Columbia to enforce a judgment obtained against appellee in New York. It is not enforcible here as a money judgment, because appellee was not a resi dent of New York and was not personally served with process there. Stock certificates that had been vested by the Alien Property Custodian, and were in New York, are now in the District of Columbia. But vested property cannot be reached by attachment or execution. Von Opel v. Uebersee Finanz Korporation, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 230, 225 F.2d 530.
In declining to permit amendment of •appellant's complaint, the District Court did not abuse its discretion.
Affirmed.