Case Name: ALLIED KID COMPANY et al. v. The UNITED STATES
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1956-07-12
Citations: 145 F. Supp. 633
Docket Number: No. 48338
Parties: ALLIED KID COMPANY et al. v. The UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Supplement
Volume: 145
Pages: 633–638

Head Matter:
ALLIED KID COMPANY et al. v. The UNITED STATES.
No. 48338.
United States Court of Claims.
July 12, 1956.
Martin P. Detels, New York City, for plaintiff. Watters & Donovan, Charles W. Harvey, and Joseph J. Magrath, 3d, New York City, were on the briefs.
Kendall M. Barnes, Washington, D. C., with whom was Asst. Atty. Gen. George Cochran Doub, for defendant. Melford O. Cleveland, Wilton, Ala., was on the briefs.
Before JONES, Chief. Judge, and LIT-TLETON, WHITAKER, MADDEN and LARAMORE, Judges. .

Opinion:
WHITAKER, Judge.
Plaintiff sues to recover just compensation for certain cargo which was unloaded from the vessel Sea Witch at Manila, Philippine Islands, in December 1941.
Although the petition in this case lists 41 plaintiffs; all claiming to be the owners of varying quantities and types of cargo unloaded from The Sea Witch at Manila, only two. claims belonging to the Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation are presently before the court for determination. One of these claims involves 1,735 cases of soup, and the other involves 26 packages of photographic supplies. These claims have been selected as test- cases, and our decision as to them will indicate the disposition to be made of the remaining claims.
Plaintiff is, and at all times material to this action was, a corporation doing business under the laws of the Crown Colony' of Hongkong,' with agencies in: the United States.
The Sea Witch arrived in Manila from the United States on of about November 26, 1941, with a general cargo-, including plaintiff's property, destined for Hong-kong, Shanghai, and Manila. The vessel immediately began to unload cargo consigned to Manila'and'completed such discharge on about December 1. Certain cargo originating iri Manila and destined' for Hongkong and Shanghai was then loaded on the vessel and she was moved out into the stream to an anchorage, ready to sail on about December 3. However, she was denied permission to-leave by Naval authorities because no vessels were being allowed to clear for Chinese or Japanese ports at that time, in anticipation of the early outbreak of war between this country and Japan.
On or about December 8 or 9, unidentified officer personnel from the Army Quartermaster Headquarters boarded The Sea Witch and examined her manifest and cargogram. The evidence is somewhat vague as to what was said and done by these officers; but the testimony indicates that the only cargo which they stated a definite desire to take was certain pipe and plate located in the bottom-of a hold. The vessel was then moved at the direction of the military authorities to pier 7 in the Manila Port Terminal Area, and her entire cargo unloaded. The evidence does not reveal whether all of the cargo was unloaded merely to get. to the pipe and plate or whether the military authorities wanted some of the other cargo. The unloading was completed on or about December 19, and The Sea Witch left Manila for the East Indies.
The circumstances and conditions existing in the Manila Port Terminal Area at the time pertinent to plaintiff's claim are set out fully in the court's findings of fact, and are also discussed in Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation v. The United States, Ct.Cl., 145 F. Supp. 631. The only substantial difference between the facts of the present case and those of the Hongkong case is that in the present case military personnel boarded The Sea Witch to examine her cargo, and she was directed by the military to discharge her cargo, whereas in the Hongkong case the vessel involved discharged her cargo under orders from her owners.
Plaintiff alleges that there was a taking of its soup and photographic supplies within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment, and that it is entitled to recover just compensation for such taking.
Unless a taking of plaintiff's property occurred when the unidentified military personnel boarded The Sea Witch and •examined her cargo, or when she was directed by the military to discharge her cargo, plaintiff's claims must fail for the reasons stated in the Hongkong case, supra. We think plaintiff has failed to establish a taking.
The evidence is not clear as to just what the military personnel said after "they boarded the vessel. However, the •evidence indicates that they were primarily interested in certain pipe and plate which were at the bottom of a hold. The soup and photographic supplies involved in this suit apparently were not mentioned and we do not think that the evidence establishes a taking of them at that time, or later.
Since the pipe and plate were at the bottom of a hold, it is possible that the military authorities ordered all of the cargo unloaded in order to get to them. On the other hand, it is possible that the military authorities intended to screen all of the cargo after it was unloaded in order to determine whether some other parts of it had a military use. In either case the mere order to unload the cargo did not mean that the military was taking plaintiff's property.
Once the cargo was unloaded, it was subject to the uncertainties described in the Hongkong case, supra, and for the reasons stated in that case plaintiff is not entitled to recover on its claims.
Plaintiff is, not entitled to recover just compensation for its soup or photographic supplies, and its petition will be dismissed as to such cargo. All other claims set out in the petition will be dismissed for the reasons stated in this opinion.
It is so ordered.