1. Under § 9-e of the Trading with the Enemy Act, a debt to one
who is not a citizen of the United States can not be allowed unless
it "arose with reference to money or property" held by the Alien
Property Custodian or the Treasurer of the United States. P.
272 U. S.
732.
2. The debts in this case, consisting of judgments against a
person whose interest in a fund was seized by the Custodian, did
not so arise.
Id.
3. A receiver appointed by a New York court in proceedings
supplementary to execution, to collect the judgments, was in no
better position than the judgment creditors. Trading with the Enemy
Act, § 9-f. P.
272 U. S.
733.
55 App.D.C. 354; 6 F.2d 479, affirmed.
Appeals from decrees of the Court of Appeals of the District of
Columbia which sustained the Supreme Court of the District in
refusing to permit Keane, receiver, to intervene in a suit under
the Trading with the Enemy Act, and in dismissing the suit after
hearing. The plaintiffs, Pauline Andre de la Mettrie and George
Pratt de Gasquet James, in 1915, had recovered judgments against
the defendant Elizabeth Pratt de Gasquet James in the settlement of
her accounts as executrix of her husband's
Page 272 U. S. 732
will, in a surrogate's court in New York, and sought by this
suit to reach, and apply to the judgments, the interest of the
defendant James in a voluntary trust created by herself in 1887,
before her husband's death, and which had been taken over by the
Alien Property Custodian. The other appellant, Keane, had been
appointed receiver of the property of the defendant James in
proceedings in New York supplementary to the judgment.
MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The challenged decrees were entered March 2, 1925, 6 F.2d 479.
Both causes had been heard upon a single record.
In No. 54 appellants, citizens of France, sought to recover from
the Alien Property Custodian certain funds seized by him November
5, 1918, as the property of an alien enemy. They relied upon § 9,
Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended by Act June 5, 1920, c. 241,
41 Stat. 977. The court below held that the claim did not arise
with reference to money or property held by the Custodian or by the
Treasurer of the United States, and affirmed the decree of the
trial court which dismissed the bill.
Banco Mexicano v.
Deutsche Bank, 263 U. S. 591.
Considering the facts disclosed and the definite terms of the
statute, this action was clearly right. Subsection (e) of § 9
provides:
Page 272 U. S. 733
"No money or other property shall be returned nor any debt
allowed under this section to any person who is a citizen or
subject of any nation which was associated with the United States
in the prosecution of the war unless such nation in like case
extends reciprocal rights to citizens of the United States, nor, in
any event, shall a debt be allowed under this section unless it was
owing to and owned by the claimant prior to October 6, 1917, and as
to claimants other than citizens of the United States unless it
arose with reference to the money or other property held by the
Alien Property Custodian or Treasurer of the United States
hereunder."
No. 55 is a separate appeal by a receiver. The appellants in No.
54 instituted in the Supreme Court, New York County, supplemental
proceedings for the purpose of enforcing judgments which they held
against Mrs. James, and on June 18, 1923, that court appointed
David Keane receiver of all the debtor's property. Thereafter he
asked to be made party to cause No. 54, claiming that, by reason of
such appointment, he had an interest in the fund held by the
Custodian. The trial court denied this application, and, upon
appeal, the court below affirmed that action. The claim is without
merit. Subsection (f) of § 9, Trading with the Enemy Act,
provides:
"Except as herein provided, the money or other property
conveyed, transferred, assigned, delivered, or paid to the Alien
Property Custodian shall not be liable to lien, attachment,
garnishment, trustee process, or execution, or subject to any order
or decree of any court."
The appointment of the receiver gave him no better position than
the one occupied by the judgment creditors -- the New York court
had no jurisdiction over funds held by the Custodian.
The decrees below are
Affirmed.
In No. 55 MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, MR. JUSTICE SANFORD, and MR.
JUSTICE STONE concur in the result.
