277 U.S. 138 (1928), Hamburg-American Line Terminal & Navigation
| Citation | 277 U.S. 138, 48 S.Ct. 470, 72 L.Ed. 822 |
| Party Name | Hamburg-American Line Terminal & Navigation |
| Case Date | May 14, 1928 |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Page 138
APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS
Syllabus
1. Under the Trading With the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, § 2, property in this country owned by a domestic corporation was nonenemy property even though an enemy owned all of its stock. P. 140.
2. Where property of a domestic corporation whose stock was enemy-owned was taken over during the war and the compensation fixed by the President was paid, interest on the sum paid is not recoverable from time of taking to time of payment in the absence of anything showing that due allowance for the delay was not made in fixing the compensation. P. 141.
Page 139
3. Petitions in these cases alleging taking and use of plaintiffs' property by the United States state causes of action, but should be made more definite and certain by amendment. P. 141.
59 Ct.Cls. 461, id., 974, reversed.
Appeals from judgments of the Court of Claims dismissing petitions based on the taking and use of plaintiffs' property during the war.
MCREYNOLDS, J., lead opinion
MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
These appeals were taken June 16, 1924, from judgments of the Court of Claims which sustained demurrers to the petitions. For the views of that court, see Deutsch-Australische Dampfschiffs-Gesellschaft, Appellant v.
Page 140
United States, 59 Ct.Cls. 450. Appellants are incorporated under the laws of New Jersey, and their entire capital stock has long been owned by the Hamburg-American Line, a German corporation.
In cause No. 3, the appellant seeks to recover (1) compensation for the use of certain docks and piers, New York harbor, seized by the United States April 6, 1917, and used by them until June 28, 1918, and (2) interest on the sum awarded by the President (December 3, 1918) as compensation for the same property from June 28, 1918, when title was taken thereto, until January 5, 1919, the date of actual payment. In cause No. 4, the claim is for the value of two tugboats, launch, barge, and coal hoister requisitioned and taken by the United States April 6, 1917, at the port of New York, and in No. 5, judgment is asked because of three barges, likewise taken on the same day.
The court below evidently proceeded upon the view that the property of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
190 F.Supp. 529 (S.D.N.Y. 1960), Pioneer Import Corp. v. Rogers
...With the Enemy Act. Settle order. Notes: [1] 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix § 9(a). [2] Hamburg-American Line T. & N. Co. v. United States, 277 U.S. 138, 48 S.Ct. 470, 72 L.Ed. 822; Schering Corp. v. Gilbert, 2 Cir., 153 F.2d 428. [3] United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc., 272 U.S. 1, 47 S.Ct......
-
95 F.Supp. 510 (D.Mass. 1950), Civ. 7258, Knitting Mach. Corp. v. Hayward Hosiery Co.
...although all of the stock of the corporation be enemy-owned. Hamburg American Line Terminal & Navigation Co. v. United States, 277 U.S. 138, 48 S.Ct. 470, 72 L.Ed. 882. The United States, the sole stockholder in Kalio, is interested in the outcome of the litigation which will affect the......
-
332 U.S. 480 (1947), 35, Clark v. Uebersee Finanz-Korporation, A.G.
...enemy-owned, rather than to take over the corporate property." Hamburg-American Line Terminal & Navigation Co. v. United States, 277 U.S. 138, That was at least one respect in which the Act had a "rigidity and inflexibility" that was sought to be cured by the amendment to......
-
277 U.S. 81 (1928), 841, Gaines v. Washington
...process of law exacted in the Fourteenth Amendment in causes tried in state courts must be construed as equivalent to the Sixth Amendment [48 S.Ct. 470] in federal trials. The question has not arisen in any case cited to us. It would involve a consideration of whether due process requires m......
-
190 F.Supp. 529 (S.D.N.Y. 1960), Pioneer Import Corp. v. Rogers
...With the Enemy Act. Settle order. Notes: [1] 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix § 9(a). [2] Hamburg-American Line T. & N. Co. v. United States, 277 U.S. 138, 48 S.Ct. 470, 72 L.Ed. 822; Schering Corp. v. Gilbert, 2 Cir., 153 F.2d 428. [3] United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc., 272 U.S. 1, 47 S.Ct......
-
95 F.Supp. 510 (D.Mass. 1950), Civ. 7258, Knitting Mach. Corp. v. Hayward Hosiery Co.
...although all of the stock of the corporation be enemy-owned. Hamburg American Line Terminal & Navigation Co. v. United States, 277 U.S. 138, 48 S.Ct. 470, 72 L.Ed. 882. The United States, the sole stockholder in Kalio, is interested in the outcome of the litigation which will affect the......
-
332 U.S. 480 (1947), 35, Clark v. Uebersee Finanz-Korporation, A.G.
...enemy-owned, rather than to take over the corporate property." Hamburg-American Line Terminal & Navigation Co. v. United States, 277 U.S. 138, That was at least one respect in which the Act had a "rigidity and inflexibility" that was sought to be cured by the amendment to......
-
277 U.S. 81 (1928), 841, Gaines v. Washington
...process of law exacted in the Fourteenth Amendment in causes tried in state courts must be construed as equivalent to the Sixth Amendment [48 S.Ct. 470] in federal trials. The question has not arisen in any case cited to us. It would involve a consideration of whether due process requires m......