Court Opinion

ID: 9420603
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:55:21.518524+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:26.127508
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Douglas,
concurring.
I join in the opinion of the Court since it places control of the public interest phase of the controversy in the licensing power of the Custodian. Payment of claims *465requires a license.1 A license, of course, may be refused when payment would accrue directly or indirectly to the benefit of the enemy. But the policy of the Act is in no way subverted by recognition of a lien which can ripen into a priority only if payment would have no such effect. Denial of the lien could be made only if the Act called for an equality of distribution among claimants, regardless of their innocence or guilt. I can find nothing in the Act which warrants leveling the good faith lien claimant to the unsecured status of the others.2

 See § 5 (b) of the Trading With the Enemy Act, 40 Stat. 411, 415, as amended, 54 Stat. 179, 55 Stat. 839, and 8 CFR, c. II, Part 511.

 The priority of debt claims contained in § 34 (g), 60 Stat. 925, 928, does not purport to deal with creditors preferred by reason of a lien lawfully acquired in judicial proceedings.