Behn, Meyer Co v. Miller
Decision Date | 05 January 1925 |
Docket Number | No. 343,343 |
Citation | 69 L.Ed. 374,45 S.Ct. 165,266 U.S. 457 |
Parties | BEHN, MEYER & CO., Limited, v. MILLER, Alien Property Custodian, et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Syllabus from pages 457-459 intentionally omitted] Mr. Wm. D. Guthrie, of New York, City, for appellant.
Mr. Merrill E. Otis, of St. Joseph, Mo., for appellees.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 459-461 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
Since December, 1905, the appellant, Behn, Meyer & Co., Limited, has been a corporation organized under the laws of the Straits Settlements, a crown colony of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It has never been a resident of nor has it done business within the territory of any nation at war with the United States since April 6, 1917, or an ally of such nation. Prior to February, 1918, under the supervision of Menzi, a stockholder and citizen of Switzerland, it carried on business in the Philippine Islands. During that month, and while subjects of Germany held most of its stock, the Alien Property Custodian, claiming authority under the Trading with the Enemy Act, seized and converted into cash the corporation's assets found in those islands. The proceeds are held by him or by the Treasurer of the United States.
Alleging that its property had been improperly seized and the proceeds were being unjustly withheld, the company brought suit to recover them in the Supreme Court, District of Columbia, July 28, 1922. Upon motion the trial court dismissed the petition and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decree.
Following much consideration, Congress passed the original Trading with the Enemy Act, approved October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. 411, c. 106 [Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, §§ 3115 1/2 a-3115 1/2 ff, 3115 1/2 g-3115 1/2 j]). It is long (19 sections), rather complicated, and evinces the purpose to clothe the President with definitely restricted powers in respect of seizing property of those designated as enemies. It has been amended several times but has always contained the original provisions (section 9 [section 3115 1/2 e]) allowing recovery of seized property which did not in fact belong to an enemy. Stoeher v. Wallace, 255 U. S. 239, 243, 246, 41 S. Ct. 293, 295, 296 (65 L. Ed. 604); Central Union Trust Co. v. Garvan, 254 U. S. 554, 41 S. Ct. 214, 65 L. Ed. 403; Commercial Trust Co. v. Miller, 262 U. S. 51, 43 S. Ct. 486, 67 L. Ed. 858.
Section 2 (section 3115 1/2 aa), which has remained unchanged, declares that 'person' shall include corporation or body politic and the word 'enemy' shall be deemed to mean:
'(a) Any individual, partnership, or other body of individuals, of any nationality, resident within the territory (including that occupied by the military and naval forces) of any nation with which the United States is at war, or resident outside the United States and doing business within such territory, and any corporation incorporated within such territory of any nation with which the United States is at war or incorporated within any country other than the United States and doing business within such territory.
'(b) The government of any nation with which the United States is at war, or any political or municipal subdivision thereof, or any officer, official, agent, or agency thereof.
'(c) Such other individuals, or body or class of individuals, as may be natives, citizens, or subjects of any nation with which the United States is at war, other than citizens of the United States, wherever resident or wherever doing business, as the President, if he shall find the safety of the United States or the successful prosecution of the war shall so require, may, by proclamation, include within the term 'enemy."
Also, the words 'ally of enemy' shall be deemed to mean:
'(a) Any individual, partnership, or other body of individuals, of any nationality, resident within the territory (including that occupied by the military and naval forces) of any nation which is an ally of a nation with which the United States is a war, or resident outside the United States and doing business within such territory, and any corporation incorporated within such territory of such ally nation, or incorporated within any country other than the United States and doing business within such territory.
'(b) The government of any nation which is an ally of a nation with which the United States is at war, or any political or municipal subdivision of such ally nation, or any officer, official, agent, or agency thereof.
'(c) Such other individuals, or body or class of individuals, as may be natives, citizens, or subjects of any nation which is an ally of a nation with which the United States is at war, other than citizens of the United States, wherever resident or wherever doing business, as the President, if he shall find the safety of the United States or the successful prosecution of the war shall so require, may, by proclamation, include within the term 'ally of enemy."
After prohibiting trade with, for or on account of any enemy or ally of enemy, and making sundry provisions for licenses, appointment of an Alien Property Custodian, reports to him, etc., etc., the original act provided:
1 Section 3115 1/2 d.
* * *'Section 31151/2 e.
Section 9 was materially amended by the Act of June 5, 1920, c. 241, 41 Stat. 977. The original section, quoted above, was reenacted as subsection (a). It provides for recovery when the seized property belonged to one not an 'enemy or ally of enemy,' where the taking was in fact without warrant of law. Six subsections—(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g)—were added. Subsection (b) permits recovery by some within the definition of 'enemy' whose properly had been lawfully seized. Each of its eight numbered paragraphs include such persons. Subsection (c) and those parts of subsection (b) here specially important follow. All of subsection (b) is printed below.2
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bonnar v. United States
...an enemy when the enemy had placed them in a neutral or American company in exchange for its shares. See, Behn, Meyer & Co. v. Miller, 266 U.S. 457, 45 S.Ct. 165, 69 L.Ed. 374 (1925); and Hamburg-American Line Terminal & Navigation Co. v. United States, 277 U.S. 138, 48 S.Ct. 470, 72 L.Ed. ......
-
Becker Steel Co of America v. Cummings
...effect to its remedial purpose, see Miller v. Robertson, 266 U.S. 243, 248, 45 S.Ct. 73, 69 L.Ed. 265; Behn, Meyer & Co. v. Miller, 266 U.S. 457, 471, 472, 45 S.Ct. 165, 69 L.Ed. 374. In the present state of the record it is unnecessary to inquire whether the effect of the act is to sanctio......
-
Tagle v. Regan
...at 563. The Trading With the Enemy Act was enacted on October 6, 1917 "(f)ollowing much consideration," Behn, Meyer & Co. v. Miller, 266 U.S. 457, 462, 45 S.Ct. 165, 69 L.Ed. 374 (1925). The bill "clothe(d) the President with definitely restricted powers in respect of seizing property of th......
-
American Airways Charters, Inc. v. Regan
...with definitely restricted powers in respect of seizing property of those designated as enemies." Behn, Meyer & Co. v. Miller, 266 U.S. 457, 462, 45 S.Ct. 165, 165, 69 L.Ed. 374 (1925). The drafters of the original Act described it as designed to mitigate the rules of law which prohibit all......
-
VEIL PEEKING: THE CORPORATION AS A NEXUS FOR REGULATION.
...can adopt enemy character through the "acts of a company's organs"). (55) Id. (emphasis added). (56) See Behn, Meyer & Co. v. Miller, 266 U.S. 457, 463 (1925) (quoting Trading with the Enemy Act, ch. 106, [section] 2(a), 40 Stat. 411, 411 (1917) (codified at 50 U.S.C. [section] 4302(a))......