Escher v. Woods, 365
| Decision Date | 28 April 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 365,365 |
| Parties | ESCHER et al. v. WOODS, U. S. Treasurer, et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Spier Whitaker and Lyttleton Fox, both of New York City, for petitioners.
Mr. Rugg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 380-381 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a suit by citizens of Switzerland to recover property mistakenly seized during the late war as belonging to an alien enemy. The plaintiffs recovered, but on a statement of account by the Alien Property Custodian he claimed a deduction of $55,909.83 for administrative expenses, 'said sum having been paid by (him) into a fund maintained by him, out of which the expenses incurred in administering money and other property seized by the Alien Property Custodian, are paid.' On a rule to show cause the claim was disallowed by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, but the decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals. 33 F.(2d) 556. A writ of certiorari was granted by this Court. 280 U. S. 544, 50 S. Ct. 38, 74 L. Ed. —.
In the answer to the motion to show cause why the charge should not be stricken out it was not alleged and no evidence was offered to show that the expenses actually incurred in respect of the particular fund were equal to this sum, or what, if any, they were. It was said to be impracticable to prove them or to apportion the general expenses of the office. The amount was two per cent. of the assets handed over and it is said that without pleading or evidence the record shows this to be a reasonable charge.
To sustain the deduction the respondents rely upon the Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, c. 106, § 12, 40 Stat. 411, 423, amended by Act of March 28, 1918, c. 28, 40 Stat. 459, 460 (50 USCA Appendix § 12), by which the Alien Property Custodian is 'vested with all of the powers of a common-law trustee' in respect of all property, 'other than money,' received by him under the Act and may exercise any powers appurtenant thereto 'as though he were the absolute owner thereof.' They also invoke Executive Order, February 26, 1918 (No. 2813) that the Custodian Also Order of July 16, 1918 (No. 2916), of which it is necessary to mention only the direction that the expenses 'shall be limited to and paid or satisfied out of only the property or business or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Becker Steel Co of America v. Cummings
...held' by the Custodian preclude inquiry whether amounts expended were lawfully charged against the gross proceeds. Escher v. Woods, 281 U.S. 379, 50 S.Ct. 337, 74 L.Ed. 918. 'Net proceeds of sale' thus means no more than gross proceeds less charges which may be rightly deducted and we think......
- Wiseman v. United States
-
Becker Steel Co. of America v. Hicks
...interest on the $16,112.16, amounting to $3,093.50, was paid to Becker Steel Company. On April 28, 1930, in Escher v. Woods, 281 U. S. 379, 50 S. Ct. 337, 74 L. Ed. 918, the Supreme Court held that the Alien Property Custodian was not entitled to deduct from property mistakenly seized admin......
-
Standard Oil Co. v. Markham
...may recover interest earned on funds that were mistakenly taken by the Custodian, and if further, as decided in Escher v. Woods, 281 U.S. 379, 50 S.Ct. 337, 74 L.Ed. 918, the proper costs of administration of such funds are not to be chargeable against such funds, it is obvious that, under ......