Court : US Supreme Court
..... such a method of protection. it was to plug this loophole that the congress enacted in 1941 the existing 5(b) of the trading with the enemy act, authorizing the president to vest "any property or interest of any foreign country page 343 u. s. 165 or national thereof." [ footnote 2/4 ] it surely was not the purpose of ..... d.c. 296, 188 f.2d 1017. underlying the claimed right of petitioners to intervene is an important question of the power of the alien property custodian under the trading with the enemy act, namely: what part of the assets of a corporation organized under the laws of a neutral country may the custodian retain where part of the ..... 847. reversed, p. 343 u. s. 162 . page 343 u. s. 157 mr. justice black delivered the opinion of the court. acting under 5(b) of the trading with the enemy act, [ footnote 1 ] the alien property custodian vested in himself the american assets of interhandel, a swiss corporation. [ footnote 2 ] interhandel sued in the district court to recover the assets .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... of things essential to or useful in the prosecution of the war. there is nothing to support a strict construction of the act in respect of the seizure and disposition of enemy property. on the other hand, contemporaneous conditions and war legislation indicate a purpose to employ all legitimate means effectively to prosecute the war ..... it was too broad, and constituted an attempt to give to the custodian the very power granted to the president by the act -- that is, the power to determine that enemy properties should be disposed of otherwise than as specified in the proviso. but the contention cannot prevail. each of the orders sufficiently described ..... used, there is nothing to indicate a legislative purpose to deal with that subject. the trading with the enemy act is a war measure covering specifically, fully, and exclusively the seizure and disposition of enemy properties. the authority of the president to authorize sales and to determine terms and conditions in lieu of those specified .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... be settled by future direction of congress. id. 3. clause 1 of 9-b of the trading with the enemy act, as amended june 5, 1920, c. 241, 41 stat. 977, which provides for return of seized enemy property whose owner was and remains a "citizen or subject" of a nation other than germany, austria, hungary, or ..... reason of residence in germany or otherwise, were included in the term 'enemy.' we have taken over that property, and, under the present wording of the act, the custodian cannot release it, and the attorney general cannot upon application act favorably, because it was, technically, enemy property at the time. we have a number of cases of that kind, ..... former owners, where it cannot eventually yield aid or comfort to the enemy directly or indirectly. until the peace terms are finally signed and the ultimate disposition of enemy property determined by the act of congress, it shall be the firm purpose of the alien property custodian to carry out the will of the congress in respect thereto. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... return to their allegiance. it was the seizure and confiscation of "the estate, property, money, stocks, credits, and effects" of the persons thus specially designated that the act authorized, not the seizure and confiscation of property in enemies' territory, or of enemies generally. it was at the estate and interest which belonged to offending persons of ..... notice them in detail. what we have to say upon the confiscation act, the title which passed by a condemnation and sale under it, and the power of enemies to sell and convey to each other their interest in real property situated within the lines of the other belligerent, will sufficiently express our ..... it was dominated by the federal forces. such residents were deemed enemies by the mere fact of being inhabitants of that territory, without reference to any hostile disposition manifested or hostile acts committed by them. in numerous instances also, transfers of property were made in loyal states bordering on the line of actual .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... the mode of procedure for its condemnation in the courts. the system devised was necessarily exclusive. no authority was given to a military commandant, as such, to effect any confiscation. and under neither of the acts was the property of a banking institution made ..... manner provided by the acts of congress. those acts were passed on the 6th of august, 1861, and on the 17th of july, 1862. no others authorized the confiscation of private property, and they prescribed the manner in which alone confiscation could be made. they designated government agents for seizing enemies' property, and they directed ..... confiscable. both of them had in view the property of natural persons who were public enemies, of persons who gave aid and comfort to the rebellion, or who held office under .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... be beyond question; but there are other facts which put the case in a somewhat different light. under the confiscation act of july 17, 1862, 12 stat. 589, c. 195, the lot had been seized as the property of a public enemy and sold to shepherd. by these proceedings, the estate of charles w. c. dunnington, the ancestor of the ..... dunnington, who was in rebellion against the united states. under these proceedings, the lot was duly condemned as enemy's property, and exposed to public sale at which a. r. shepherd became the purchaser and entered into possession. 3. under the act of may 8, 1872, 17 stat. 83, c. 140, 6, proceedings were commenced in the supreme court ..... the sale under the confiscation act passed the life estate subject to the charge. the subject was considered at length in the case of wallach v. van riswick, 92 u. s. 202 , which was a bill for the redemption of a deed of trust of property in washington, subsequently confiscated, given by wallach, a public enemy, to secure the payment .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... is an irregularity in the proceedings, which should reverse the judgment and send the case back for a new hearing. there are two acts of congress relating to the condemnation of enemies' property -- one was passed in 1861, and the other in 1862. they differ materially in regard to the grounds on which condemnation can ..... manner as if it were enemies' property. this clause does not provide that the property shall be condemned if found to be enemies' property, but that when condemned it shall be with the like effect as though it were such property. it would seem clear, therefore, that the provisions of the act were not passed in the ..... proceedings in rem for the confiscation of the property of parties charged to be guilty of certain overt acts of treason, can be maintained without their previous conviction for the alleged offenses. such proceedings, according to mr. chief justice marshall, may be had for the condemnation of enemies' property when authorized by congress. the proceedings in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... not have jurisdiction of said cause, but the same shall, without further proceedings, be dismissed." twenty years after the passage of the captured and abandoned property act; nearly fifteen years after the close of the rebellion and the proclamation of amnesty; twelve years after the decision of klein's, armstrong's, ..... , and he may proceed. otherwise, not." the chief justice pointed out that the required consent was not contained in the captured and abandoned property act itself, for the only action there consented to was one to be commenced within two years after the suppression of the rebellion, and that such ..... enemy retreated, that property would remain in the country without apparent ownership, which should be collected and disposed of. in this condition of things, congress acted. while providing for the disposition of this captured and abandoned property, congress recognized the status of the loyal southern people, and distinguished between property owned by them and the property .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... intervene, it would be completely beyond the reach of subsequent condemnation. there is, then, no distinction recognized by any act of congress between enemies' property which was within our ports at the commencement of war and enemies' property found elsewhere. neither is declared ipso facto confiscated, and each, as i contend, is merely confiscable. i will ..... rests the sovereignty of the nation as to the right of making war and declaring its limits and effects) has authorized the seizure of enemies' property afloat in our ports. the act of 18 june, 1812, ch. 102, is in very general terms, declaring war against great britain and authorizing the president to employ ..... upon it. i do not, therefore, contend that modern usage of nations constitutes a rule acting on enemies' property, so as to produce confiscation of itself, and not through the sovereign power. on the contrary, i consider enemies' property in no case whatsoever confiscated by the mere declaration of war; it is only liable to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... no captures of the ships or cargo of the rebels as enemies' property on the sea, or confiscation in prize courts as rights of war, took place until after the passage of the act of parliament. until the passage of the act, the american subjects were not regarded as enemies in the sense of the law of nations. the distinction ..... be said that the president has the power to convert a loyal citizen into a belligerent enemy or confiscate his property as enemy's property. congress assembled on the call for an extra session the 4th of july, 1861, and among the first acts passed was one in which the president was authorized by proclamation to interdict all trade and ..... between the loyal and rebel subjects was constantly observed. that act provided for the capture and confiscation as prize of their property as if the same were the proper "of open enemies." for the first time, the distinction was obliterated. so the war carried on by the president against the .....
Tag this Judgment!