Lange v. Wingrave, 17378.
| Decision Date | 02 February 1924 |
| Docket Number | 17378. |
| Parties | LANGE v. WINGRAVE et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
Charles F. Helmecke, of New Orleans, La., for complainant.
Louis Henry Burns, U.S. Atty., of New Orleans, La. (Wayne G. Borah Asst. U.S. atty., of New Orleans, La., and Dean Hill Stanley Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for Alien Property Custodian.
William C. Orchard and John J. Wingrave, both of New Orleans, La for defendants Wingrave and Rodriguez.
The bill in this case in substance alleges that the plaintiff is a citizen of Germany, residing in said country, formerly a subject of the German emperor; that he inherited a certain piece of real estate in the city of New Orleans of the value of $12,000; that the said property was seized November, 1919, by the Alien Property Custodian in pursuance of the Act of Congress of October 6, 1917, known as the Trading with the Enemy Act (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, Secs. 3115 1/2a-3115 1/2ff, 3115 1/2g-3115 1/2j); that on misrepresentations by the defendant Wingrave the Alien Property Custodian agreed to the sale of the property, and it was sold at private sale for cash for $2,000; that in executing the sale, the Alien Property Custodian was represented by one McKinney, acting under a power of attorney; that this sale was made on May 14, 1920, and on the same day Wingrave sold the property to the other defendant, Rodriguez, for $5,000; that both the transfers were fraudulent and void; that the sale was illegal, not being in conformity to the Act of March 28, 1918 (40 Stat. 459). The bill prays for service, and for judgment in favor of plaintiff, recognizing him as the true and lawful owner of the property, and entitled to full and undisputed possession, and for a decree ordering the delivery of possession to him.
The Alien Property Custodian has filed an answer, including a motion to dismiss the bill on various grounds, not necessary to state. It is the theory of the plaintiff that, because the property was not sold at auction, and because of the allegations of fraud contained in the bill, that the sale is void, and that the property is still legally in the custody of the Alien Property Custodian. This theory, I think, is untenable.
Without doubt the plaintiff was an alien enemy at the time the property was seized. While the United States was at war with Germany, the property...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Guessefeldt v. Grath
...the possession of vested enemy property by the United States. Junkers v. Chemical Foundation, Inc., D.C., 287 F. 597; Lange v. Wingrave, D.C., 295 F. 565; Klein v. Palmer, 2 Cir., 18 F.2d 932. For present purposes it does not matter whether this action was taken simply to secure claims of A......
-
Munich Reinsurance Co. v. First Reinsurance Co.
...treaty, in our opinion, bars the assertion in our courts of any such claim as that put forward by the complainant herein. See Lange v. Wingrave (D. C.) 295 F. 565; United States v. Chemical Foundation (D. C.) 294 F. 300; Junkers v. Chemical Foundation (D. C.) 287 F. 597, It is said that the......