Direction Der v. United States Steel Corporation Bank Fur Handel Und Industrie v. Same

Decision Date26 January 1925
Docket NumberDISCONTO-GESELLSCHAFT,Nos. 676,677,s. 676
Citation69 L.Ed. 495,267 U.S. 22,45 S.Ct. 207
PartiesDIRECTION DER v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION et al. BANK FUR HANDEL UND INDUSTRIE v. SAME
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. John Weld Peck, of Cincinnati, Ohio, and John Wilson Brown, III, and Alfred K. Nippert, both of Washington, D. C., for appellants.

[Argument of Counsel from Pages 23-25 intentionally omitted] Mr. Averel Brown, of New York City, for appellee United States Steel Corporation.

[Argument of Counsel from Page 26 intentionally omitted] Mr. Frederic R. Condert, of New York City, for appellee British Public Trustee.

Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.

These are bills in equity in similar form each raising the same question. In each the plaintiff is § German corporation and the interested defendants are the Public Trustee, an English corporation sole appointed to be custodian of enemy property during the late war, and the United States Steel Corporation. Each plaintiff claims one hundred identified shares in the Steel Corporation and seeks to be declared owner of the same, to have new certificates issued to it and the outstanding certificates cancelled on the books of the corporation, and to recover past dividends declared but unpaid. The cases were submitted by them upon an agreed statement of facts, and the District Court after a discussion that leaves nothing to be added dismissed the bills. The decree declared the Public Trustee to be entitled to the shares and directed the Steel Corporation to issue new certificates to his nominee on surrender of the old ones properly endorsed. 300 F. 741.

As is usual with shares which it is desired to deal in abroad these shares were registered by tens on the Steel Corporation's books in the name of some well-known broker or the like domiciled in England, and the assignment and power of attorney to transfer the shares printed on the back of the certificate was signed by the broker in blank so that the certificate passed from hand to hand. The Disconto-Gesellschaft had bought a hundred shares and held the certificates thus indorsed in its London branch. The Bank fur Handel had bought the same number and pledged them with an English banking house in a running account. On March 27, 1918, an order of the Board of Trade in pursuance of statutory powers purported to vest in the Public Trustee the rights of the Disconto-Gesellschaft to the shares and the right to take possession of the documents of title. On April 30, 1917, a similar order had been made as to the Bank fur Handel's stock. The Public Trustee thereupon seized the certificates in London as was regular and lawful under the laws of England while the war was going on and freed the pledged securities from the lien upon them by a sale of other stocks. He claims a title confirmed by the Treaty of Berlin and the Treaty of Versailles. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
65 cases
  • First Nat. Bank v. Mayor and City Council
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • April 25, 1939
    ...255, 265, 159 A. 770; Kerr v. Urie, 86 Md. 72, 76, 37 A. 789, 38 L.R. A. 119, 63 Am.St.Rep. 493; Disconto-Gesellschaft v. United States Steel Corp., 267 U.S. 22, 28, 45 S.Ct. 207, 69 L.Ed. 495. As I read the New York decisions they permit the application of the doctrine of title by estoppel......
  • Comm'r of Banks v. Chase Sec. Corp.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • September 20, 1937
    ...specified person.’ New York Personal Property Law (Consol.Laws, c. 41) art. 6, § 162; Direction Der Disconto-Gesellschaft v. United States Steel Corp., 267 U.S. 22, 28, 29, 45 S.Ct. 207, 208, 69 L.Ed. 495;Hutchison v. Ross, 262 N.Y. 381, 390, 391, 187 N.E. 65; Am.Law Inst.Restatement, Confl......
  • Lohman v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 25, 1930
    ...is also the doctrine of the Supreme Court of the United States. Direction Der Disconto-Gesellschaft v. U.S. Steel Corp., 300 F. 741, 267 U.S. 22. (d) Shares of stock, being property, and subject to purchase and sale within and without the State of Missouri, questions concerning the ownershi......
  • Elgart v. Mintz
    • United States
    • New Jersey Court of Chancery
    • March 17, 1938
    ...N.Y. S. 679; General Motors Corporation v. Verlinden, 199 App.Div. 375, 192 N.Y.S. 28; Direction Der Disconto-Gesellschaft v. United States Steel Corporation, 267 U.S. 22, 45 S.Ct. 207, 69 L.Ed. 495; Pilger v. United States Steel Corporation, 102 N.J.Eq. 506, 141 A. 737; Lohman v. Kansas Ci......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT