Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Blankfield

• Decision Date: 13 March 1919
• Docket Number: (No. 7657.)
• Citation: 211 S.W. 808
• Parties: GALVESTON, H. & S. A. RY. CO. v. BLANKFIELD.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 808

211 S.W. 808

GALVESTON, H. & S. A. RY. CO. v. BLANKFIELD.

(No. 7657.)

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Galveston.

March 13, 1919.

Appeal from District Court, Galveston County; H. Clay Buggs, Judge.

Application by H. Blankfield for administration on the estate of Sam Molnar, deceased. Application granted, and the Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Company appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Baker, Botts, Parker & Garwood, of Houston, and W. T. Armstrong and Eugene A. Wilson, both of Galveston, for appellant.

Marsene Johnson, Elmo Johnson, Roy Johnson, and Marsene Johnson, Jr., all of Galveston, for appellee.

PLEASANTS, C. J.

This appeal is from a judgment of the district court of Galveston county appointing appellee permanent administrator of the estate of Sam Molnar, deceased.

The application for administration shows that the deceased left no property in this state, and that the only reason for the appointment of an administrator was to prosecute a suit for damages against the appellant for the benefit of the heirs of the deceased.

The undisputed evidence shows that the deceased, Sam Molnar, came to Galveston from Austria-Hungary about two years before his death in August, 1915, and that his wife and children for whose benefit this proceeding was instituted reside in Austria-Hungary.

The first assignment of error presented in appellant's brief is as follows:

"The court erred in granting letters of administration upon the alleged estate of Sam Molnar, deceased, such administration being sought for the sole benefit of alien enemies in order that there may be prosecuted in their behalf an action at law in the district court of Galveston county, Tex., against a resident citizen of Texas; because such a proceeding in aid of litigation in behalf of such alien enemies was contrary to the meaning and purpose of that portion of section 7, clause (b), of the act of the United States Congress of October 6, 1917, known as the `Trading with the Enemy Act,' denying to alien enemies the right to prosecute an action at law in any court within the United States."

This cause was tried and judgment rendered in the court below on November 15, 1917.

The court will take judicial knowledge of the fact that at the time this judgment was rendered war existed between the United States and Austria-Hungary. The inhibition against the maintenance by an alien enemy of a suit in our courts is not found in any express provision of the act of Congress referred to in the assignment; but it is a well-settled rule of law of nations that the existence of war prevents a citizen of one of the belligerents from prosecuting a suit against a citizen of the other in the courts of the country of the defendant. Watts v. Unione Austriaca di Navigazione (D. C.) 224 Fed. 188. The rule is based upon the obvious ground that it is contrary to public policy for the courts of a belligerent country to render any assistance to an alien enemy to enforce claims or recover...