Beck v. McGrath
| Decision Date | 19 May 1950 |
| Docket Number | Docket 21491.,No. 202,202 |
| Citation | 182 F.2d 315 |
| Parties | BECK v. McGRATH, Atty. Gen. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Hobart S. Bird, New York City, Lesser Brothers, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant, Rudolph J. Safarik, New York City, of counsel.
Ralph S. Spritzer, Washington, D. C., Harold I. Baynton, Acting Director, Office of Alien Property, Washington, D. C., Adrian W. Maher, United States Attorney, District of Connecticut, Hartford, Conn., James L. Morrisson, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendant-appellee.
Before L. HAND, Chief Judge, and CHASE and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiff is in the dilemma that, if the sale of the shares was not subject to a right of repurchase by Scheerer, the parties never came to any agreement at all; in either event the "vesting" order of the Alien Property Custodian was lawful. The suggestion of a sale first came from Scheerer in a letter written to Beck on November 6, 1939, which was ambiguous, and which we may disregard. On November 30, he followed this by a radio, proposing a sale "reserving the right to buy back." This he had prefaced by two letters, dated November 29, in substantially the same terms, each confirming the radio of the next day. On December 2, 1939, Beck answered Scheerer's radio, by a radio, declaring that any sale must be "bona fide without reservation at the same time old debt must be extinguished." That obviously was not an acceptance of the offer contained in Scheerer's radio, but a counter proposal. When Scheerer got it, he at once answered by two letters of December 2, 1939, which differed in a material respect, for one of them contained the following passage: Beck could never be persuaded definitively to admit the receipt of that copy; which, although in form it was only of an option to Beck to return the shares, taken with what went before, seems to mean that Scheerer was adhering to his original proposal. Whatever it meant, clearly it meant only a "formally" absolute sale, and it was not an acceptance of Beck's radio of the same day.
Moreover, assuming that Beck never did receive that copy, at best the sale had been made under a mistake as to its terms. Scheerer supposed that Beck knew any sale "without reservation" would only be "formal," while Beck thought that it was to be "bona...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
FAR Liquidating Corporation v. Brownell
...5 F.2d 118, appeal dismissed 273 U.S. 673, 47 S.Ct. 577, 71 L. Ed. 1318; Beck v. Clark, D.C.Conn., 88 F.Supp. 565, affirmed Beck v. McGrath, 2 Cir., 182 F.2d 315; Vort v. McGrath, D.C.D.C., 99 F.Supp. 59, affirmed per curiam, McGranery v. Vort, 91 U.S.App. D.C. 262, 199 F.2d 782, certiorari......
-
Holdeen v. United States
...Richardson v. Smith, 102 F.2d 697, 125 A.L.R. 774 (2 Cir. 1939); Beck v. Clark, 88 F.Supp. 565 (D.Conn.1949), aff. Beck v. McGrath, 182 F.2d 315 (2 Cir. 1950). A verdict should have been directed for the taxpayer as to the income from trusts 45-10 and 46-10. It follows also from the rulings......
-
Feller v. McGrath, Civ. A. No. 7811.
...that he is the beneficial owner of the property involved. Beck v. Clark, D.C. Conn.1949, 88 F.Supp. 565, affirmed Beck v. McGrath, 2 Cir., 1950, 182 F.2d 315; Kaname Fujino v. Clark, 9 Cir., 1949, 172 F.2d 384; Thorsch v. Miller, 1925, 55 App.D.C. 295, 5 F.2d 118, 122-123. Beneficial owners......