Cummings v. Deutsche Bank Und, DISCONTO-GESELLSCHAFT
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | BUTLER |
| Citation | 81 L.Ed. 545,57 S.Ct. 359,300 U.S. 115 |
| Parties | CUMMINGS, Atty. Gen. of the United States, et al. v. DEUTSCHE BANK UND |
| Decision Date | 01 February 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 254,DISCONTO-GESELLSCHAFT |
v.
DEUTSCHE BANK UND DISCONTO-GESELLSCHAFT.
Page 116
Messrs. Homer S. Cummings, Atty. Gen., and James W. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioners.
Messrs. James J. Lenihan, of Washington, D.C., and Otto C. Sommerich, of New York City, for respondent.
Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a suit in equity brought October 3, 1934, by respondent in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia1 against petitioners praying a decree directing delivery of property seized by the Alien Property Custodian and withheld by petitioners under the Trading with the Enemy Act from 'Direction der Disconto Gesellschaft,'
Page 117
an alien enemy. Petitioners moved to dismiss the bill upon the ground that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain it because by Public Resolution No. 53 of June 27, 1934, 48 Stat. 1267, the return of the money and property sought has been postponed. The court sustained the motion and dismissed the bill. The Court of Appeals reversed. 65 App.D.C. 297, 83 F. (2d) 554. This court granted a writ of certiorari. 299 U.S. 527, 57 S.Ct. 34, 81 L.Ed. -.
In substance the bill alleges: Respondent, a German corporation, was created in 1929 by consolidation of Deutsche Bank and Direction der Disconto-Gesellschaft. After the merger, the assets of the latter became respondent's property. The Custodian determined the Disconto-Gesellschaft to be an alien enemy and seized its money and property in this country, which was held by the Custodian and deposited in the Treasury. Respondent, acting under the Settlement of War Claims Act (45 Stat. 254) and in accordance with the Custodian's rules and regulations, filed notice of claim to the property and applied to the President for its return. Before commencement of this suit, the Custodian found it entitled to the property. In March, 1931, Sprunt and others brought an action in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia against respondent; a warrant of attachment issued and, pursuant to it, the marshal levied on the money and property so held; because of the attachment petitioners refused to deliver it to respondent and retained custody. In May, 1934, that action was discontinued by plaintiffs and the attachment was released. July 1, 1934, the office of Custodian ceased; his powers and duties were transferred to the Department of Justice; all money and property held by or in trust for him was transferred to the Attorney General. Before commencement of this suit, respondent demanded and petitioners refused delivery of that here in question. Their refusal was based on Public Resolution No. 53.
Page 118
The questions for decision are whether that resolution withdrew from the trial court jurisdiction to entertain the bill, and whether it deprives respondent of its property without due process of law in contravention of the Fifth Amendment.
1. This is in substance a suit against the United States. Banco Mexicano v. Deutsche Bank, 263 U.S. 591, 603, 44 S.Ct. 209, 212, 68 L.Ed. 465; Becker Steel Co. v. Cummings, 296 U.S. 74, 78, 56 S.Ct. 15, 17, 80 L.Ed. 54. By the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, § 9(a)(b)(c),2 as amended by the Settlement of War Claims Act, §§ 11, 20,3 the United States consented, in respect of claims such as the one here in question, to be sued in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. Petitioners maintain Resolution No. 53 withdrew that consent.
The recitals of that resolution disclose reasons for its adoption. They are: A Joint Resolution of July 2, 1921,4 declared that property of German nationals held under the Trading with the Enemy Act should be retained and no disposition thereof made, except as specifically provided by law, until the German government should make suitable provision for the satisfaction of claims of American nationals against it. The Treaty of Berlin, August 25, 1921,5 accorded to the United States all rights and advantages specified in the resolution of July 2, 1921, including, those stipulated for its benefit in the Treaty of Versailles,6 not ratified by the United States. The Agreement of August 10, 1922,7 established a Mixed Claims
Page 119
Commission to adjudicate claims of American nationals against Germany. And, in the debt-funding agreement of June 23, 1930,8 Germany agreed to pay the United States on account of its awards 40,800,000 reichmarks in each year until 1981. Germany was in arrears under that agreement and had failed to make provision for satisfaction of claims established against it.
Therefore, the Resolution (48 Stat. 1267) declared: So long as Germany is in arrears in respect of obligations mentioned, all deliveries of property authorized to be made under the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, as amended, or the Settlement of War Claims Act of 1928 as amended, 'whether or not a judgment or decree has been entered with respect thereto, shall be postponed and the money or property, or the income, issues, profits, and/or avails thereof reserved: * * * Provided * * * That the President may, in his sole discretion, remove the restriction as to any of the cases * * * in relation to which * * * deliveries have been postponed under this resolution.'
The consent of the United States to be sued was revocable at any time. Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571, 581, 54 S.Ct. 840, 844, 78 L.Ed. 1434. It has not been expressly recalled and, unless by Resolution No. 53 impliedly withdrawn, the Supreme Court of the District had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Continuation of the consent was not inconsistent with the purpose of the resolution. The measure was adopted because of Germany's default which, as indicated by the context, was assumed not to be permanent. It was intended only temporarily to postpone final disposition of the seized property, merely to stay deliveries whether directed by administrative order or judgment of a court. Claimants may have deliveries whenever Germany ceases to be in arrears. Fulfillment of her promises will end the restraint imposed
Page 120
by the resolution. Postponement of deliveries does not suggest intention to withdraw consent to be sued. It was given and long continued in order to safeguard former...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Banco de Espana v. Federal Reserve Bank, No. 370-372.
...v. Garfield, 211 U.S. 70, 29 S.Ct. 31, 53 L.Ed. 92; Morrison v. Work, 266 U.S. 481, 45 S.Ct. 149, 69 L.Ed. 394; Cummings v. Deutsche Bank, 300 U.S. 115, 57 S.Ct. 359, 81 L.Ed. 545; Minnesota v. United States, 305 U.S. 382, 386, 59 S.Ct. 292, 83 L.Ed. 235. In Haskins Bros. & Co. v. Morgentha......
-
Guessefeldt v. Grath, No. 204
...for the return to admittedly enemy owners of 80% of their vested property. See Cummings v. Deutsche Bank und Disconto-Gesellschaft, 300 U.S. 115, 57 S.Ct. 359, 81 L.Ed. 545.6 Section 32 of the Trading with the Enemy Act, 60 Stat. 50, as amended, 50 U.S.C.App. (Supp. IV, 1946) § 32, 50 U.S.C......
-
Caparell v. Goodbody, 149/160.
...3 L.Ed. 504; Deutsche Bank 29 A.2d 571 und Disconto Gesellschaft v. Cummings, 65 App.D.C. 297, 83 F.2d 554, 565, rev. on other grounds 300 U.S. 115, 57 S.Ct. 359, 81 L.Ed. 545; Breuer v. Beery, A cautious exploration of the authorities discloses that they are concordant in their acceptation......
-
Ruoff v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 59951.
...Act immediately divested petitioner of title and of every beneficial right to, or interest in, the property. Cummings v. Deutsche Bank, 300 U.S. 115 (1937); United States v. Borax Consol, 62 F.Supp. 220 (N.D. Cal., 1945); United States v. Silliman, 65 F.Supp. 665, 673 (D.N.J., 1946); and Cl......
-
Caparell v. Goodbody, 149/160.
...3 L.Ed. 504; Deutsche Bank 29 A.2d 571 und Disconto Gesellschaft v. Cummings, 65 App.D.C. 297, 83 F.2d 554, 565, rev. on other grounds 300 U.S. 115, 57 S.Ct. 359, 81 L.Ed. 545; Breuer v. Beery, A cautious exploration of the authorities discloses that they are concordant in their acceptation......
-
Ruoff v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 59951.
...Act immediately divested petitioner of title and of every beneficial right to, or interest in, the property. Cummings v. Deutsche Bank, 300 U.S. 115 (1937); United States v. Borax Consol, 62 F.Supp. 220 (N.D. Cal., 1945); United States v. Silliman, 65 F.Supp. 665, 673 (D.N.J., 1946); and Cl......
-
Guessefeldt v. Grath, No. 204
...for the return to admittedly enemy owners of 80% of their vested property. See Cummings v. Deutsche Bank und Disconto-Gesellschaft, 300 U.S. 115, 57 S.Ct. 359, 81 L.Ed. 545.6 Section 32 of the Trading with the Enemy Act, 60 Stat. 50, as amended, 50 U.S.C.App. (Supp. IV, 1946) § 32, 50 U.S.C......
-
Banco de Espana v. Federal Reserve Bank, No. 370-372.
...v. Garfield, 211 U.S. 70, 29 S.Ct. 31, 53 L.Ed. 92; Morrison v. Work, 266 U.S. 481, 45 S.Ct. 149, 69 L.Ed. 394; Cummings v. Deutsche Bank, 300 U.S. 115, 57 S.Ct. 359, 81 L.Ed. 545; Minnesota v. United States, 305 U.S. 382, 386, 59 S.Ct. 292, 83 L.Ed. 235. In Haskins Bros. & Co. v. Morgentha......