Held v. Goldsmith
| Citation | 96 So. 272,153 La. 598 |
| Decision Date | 14 March 1919 |
| Docket Number | 22040 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Louisiana |
| Parties | HELD v. GOLDSMITH |
On Rehearing, April 2, 1923
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; George H Theard, Judge.
Action by A. Held against Ralph Goldsmith. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Alfred D. Danziger, of New Orleans (George A. Dreyfous and Percival H. Stern, both of New Orleans, of counsel), for appellant.
Terriberry Rice & Young, of New Orleans, for appellee.
Defendant, appellant, against whom judgment was rendered in the lower court in favor of plaintiff for the sum of $ 2,500, files in this court a motion for an indefinite postponement of this case, on the ground that the plaintiff is an alien enemy residing in Germany.
Counsel for plaintiff admit in their brief opposing the postponement that plaintiff is an alien enemy, but suggest that the case should proceed to final judgment, and, in event of a recovery by him, that this court direct the payment of any sum so recovered into the registry of the lower court to be by it turned over to the federal Custodian of Alien Property.
This suit was filed and decided by the lower court before a state of war between Germany and the United States was declared, and subsequent to the lodging of the appeal the war broke out.
It is a universal rule of international law that a state of war suspends all relations between the citizens of the countries so engaged, and precludes the prosecution of any action on the part of enemy aliens against the citizens of the country in which such claims may arise, except in some instances where the enemy is allowed to defend for the purpose of maintaining the status quo of property rights until the end of the war.
Caperton v. Bowyer, 81 U.S. 216, 14 Wall. 216, 20 L.Ed. 882.
See, also, Taylor's International Public Law (1901) p. 459, § 461, and page 463, § 465; Wilson on International Law, pp. 270-272; Small's Adm'r v. Lumpkin's Executrix, 69 Va. 832, 28 Grat. (Va.) 832; The Prize Cases, 67 U.S. 635, 2 Black, 635, 17 L.Ed. 459; Society for the Propagation of the Gospel v. Wheeler, 22 F. Cas. 756, 2 Gall. 105; Woolsey's Int. Law, p. 193, § 123; Cyc. vol. 40, p. 328; Kent's Com. vol. 1, p. 75.
This rule of international law is reinforced by the act of Congress of October 6, 1917, known as the "Trading with the Enemy Act," paragraph "b" of section 7 of which reads as follows:
"Nothing in this act shall be deemed to authorize the prosecution of any suit or action at law or in equity in any court within the United States by any enemy or ally of enemy prior to the end of the war, except as provided in section 10 hereof: Provided, however, that an enemy or ally of an enemy licensed to do business under this act may prosecute and maintain any such suit or action so far as the same arises solely out of the business transacted within the United States under such license and so long as such license remains in full force and effect: And provided further, that an enemy or ally of enemy may defend by counsel any suit in equity or action at law which may be brought against him." U.S. Comp. St. 1918, U.S. Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 3115 1/2 d.
Section 10 of the act referred to in the paragraph just quoted deals with patent rights, and it is not contended that this action has any such basis; nor does it grow out of any transaction under a license. These are the only exceptions to the prohibition against the prosecution of actions by enemy aliens in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Oropa
...of Texas, March 13, 1919, 211 S.W. 808; Held v. GoldsmithENR, Supreme Court of Louisiana, March 14, 1919, April 2, 1923 (on rehearing), 153 La. 598, 96 S.W. The later action (Springer v. Garvan, Alien Property Custodian, et Al.UNK, 276 Fed. 595) involved a slightly different point, but of t......