1. In these suits to collect from a statutory bank liquidator
claims allegedly entitled to preference under New York Banking Law
§ 606, arising from transactions with a Japanese corporation
blocked under Executive Orders Nos. 8389 and 8832, this Court
accepts the determination of the New York Court of Appeals that,
under New York law, these claims arose from transactions in New
York, and were entitled to preference. Pp.
339 U. S.
842-843.
2. Since the New York court conditioned enforcement of the
claims upon licensing by the Alien Property Custodian, federal
control over alien property remains undiminished.
Propper v.
Clark, 337 U. S. 472,
distinguished. P.
339 U. S.
842.
3. This Court agrees that, at the time the New York judgments
were entered, no license had been issued to these claimant, and it
affirms the judgments below. P.
339 U. S.
843.
299 N.Y. 113, 139, 85 N.E.2d 894, 906, affirmed.
Page 339 U. S. 842
PER CURIAM.
Certiorari was granted in these cases to review federal issues
respecting the administration of frozen alien property. 339 U.S.
902, 909.
The cases arose from suits brought by claimants Singer and
Mellie Iran to collect from a statutory bank liquidator claims
allegedly entitled to a preference under New York Banking Law § 606
arising from transactions with a Japanese corporation, blocked
under Executive Orders Nos. 8389, 5 Fed.Reg. 1400; 8832, 6 Fed.Reg.
3715. The New York Court of Appeals held that the transactions gave
rise to a preferred claim in the liquidation, but that payment by
the liquidator must await specific licensing by the Alien Property
Custodian of the transactions underlying the claims.
Singer v.
Yokohama Specie Bank, Ltd., 293 N.Y. 542, 58 N.E.2d 726, 299
N.Y. 113, 85 N.E.2d 894;
Banque Mellie Iran v. Yokohama Specie
Bank, Ltd., 299 N.Y. 139, 85 N.E.2d 906.
Those opposed to the judgments urge that, as a matter of federal
law, the freezing order prevented the creation of any claim
recognizable under § 606 of the New York Banking Law.
Oral argument and study of the record have convinced us that the
judgments of the New York Court of Appeals are not inconsistent
with the First War Powers Act of 1941, § 301, 55 Stat. 839, or the
above Executive Orders. We accept the New York court's
determination that, under New York law, these claims arose from
transactions in New York and were entitled to a preference. Since
the New York court conditioned enforcement of the claims upon
licensing by the Alien Property Custodian, federal control over
alien property remains undiminished. Our
Page 339 U. S. 843
decision in
Propper v. Clark, 337 U.
S. 472, does not require a contrary conclusion. There,
the liquidator claimed title to frozen assets adversely to the
Custodian, and sought to deny the Custodian's paramount power to
vest the alien property in the United States. No such result
follows from the New York court's judgments in the present
cases.
Since we further agree that, at the time the New York judgments
were entered, no licenses had been issued to these claimants, we
affirm the judgments below.
Affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER is of the opinion that, since the
federal question in Nos. 513 and 528 has been eliminated by the
license granted by the Director, Office of Alien Property, no
jurisdiction to review remains in this Court. Therefore, the writs
of certiorari in these two cases should be dismissed.
* Together with No. 5,
Singer v. Yohohama Specie Bank, Ltd.
et al.; No. 513,
Lyon, Superintendent of Banks v. Banque
Mellie Iran, and No. 528,
Banque Mellie Iran v. Lyon,
Superintendent of Banks, also on certiorari to the same
court.
