Skip to main content
· 1/24/1921

Central Union Trust Co. of NY v. Garvan

Citations

  • 254 U.S. 554
  • 41 S. Ct. 214
  • 65 L. Ed. 403
  • 1921 U.S. LEXIS 1852

Syllabus

<p>1. Decrees of the Circuit Court of Appeals affirming decrees of the District Court, placing the Alien Property Custodian in possession of property in libel proceedings brought by him under the Trading with the Enemy Act, held' reviewable. in this court by writ of error. P. 566. • -</p> <p>2. Congress has power in war time to provide for immediate seizure, in pais or through a court, of property supposed to belong to the enemy, leaving the question of enemy ownership vel rum, to be settled later at the suit of the claimant. P. 566..</p> <p>3. Under § 17 of the Trading with the Enemy Act of October j6, 1917, which confers on the District Court jurisdiction to make all such orders and decrees as may be necessary and'proper to enforce the provisions of the act, those courts have jurisdiction to enforce the demands of the Alien Property Custodian for the delivery of property to the possession of which the act entitles him. P. 566. •</p> <p>4. The Trading with the Enemy Act, § 7 (c), provides that, “If the President shall so require, any money or other property . . . held . . . for the benefit of an enemy,” without license,'(‘which the President after investigation shall determine . . . is so' held, shall be conveyed, transferred, assigned, delivered, or paid over to the alien property custodian.” Held, that, upon a determination after investigation by the Custodian, exercising the President’s power by delegation under § 5 of the act, that certain securities were held by trustees for the benefit of enemy insurance companies, followed by demand, the duty arosé to deliver them to the Custodian; that the question of enemy property vel non could not be inquired into in his suit to compel delivery, but rights in that regard could be asserted and protected by claim, and if necessary suit, for return of the property, under § 9, as amended. P. 567</p> <p>5. Proceedings of this character are alternative to direct seizure by the Custodian under § 7 (c) of the act as amended by t

Judges: Holmes

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.