Klein v. Brodbeck, 8133
| Decision Date | 06 September 1934 |
| Docket Number | 8135.,No. 8133,8133 |
| Citation | 15 F. Supp. 473 |
| Parties | KLEIN, Escheator of Pennsylvania, v. BRODBECK. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
A. Jere Creskoff and Grover C. Ladner, both of Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner.
Charles D. McAvoy, U. S. Atty., of Philadelphia, Pa., for the United States.
Leave was given to file supplemental briefs. The cause is now ripe for a ruling.
The main objective of these proceedings is clear enough. The petitioner, who styles himself "Escheator of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania," seeks to recover moneys, part of which is in the registry of this court and part in the Treasury of the United States. His claim to it is that this money is property which has escheated to Pennsylvania. Some of the obstacles he must surmount before he can get the money are suggested by the caption given to the present proceedings. We have followed the form adopted by him.
The District Courts of the United States have many capacities in which they may sit. They may sit as courts of law; as courts of equity; as courts in admiralty; as bankruptcy courts; and in many capacities. We have designated these proceedings as in equity because the petitioner has so designated them. We have given the subheading of a motion to dismiss because the present status of the proceedings was so referred to at the argument. We have not the record before us, so do not know whether any such formal motion has been made. There is no real importance in this, because if the prayers of the petitions cannot be granted the petitions are dismissed. We do not have access to the petitions, so assume that the prayers are that this court enter judgments of escheat by analogy to the action which would be taken by the state courts in escheat proceedings.
We will treat this as the real question before us. Can this court enter a judgment of escheat in favor of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania? It is an anticipation, but we may interpolate here the comment that this is a wholly different question from that of whether this court would recognize the claims of Pennsylvania to these moneys under a title by escheat.
These moneys are in the hands of this court, or still, as to distribution, under its control. If any one turned up as a claimant owner, we could award the moneys to him. "Any one" would include Pennsylvania. Any claimant, however, would be required to show title before he could receive an award. This likewise includes Pennsylvania.
We have been favored with a very full discussion of the subject of escheat and the right of Pennsylvania to claim these moneys by escheat as a sovereign state. We would go much beyond what we are asked to do to support such claims of a sovereign. A sovereign is omnipotent, restrained only by the laws of nature and his relations with other sovereign powers. The latter restricts him to his own domains. Within them he is the ultimate owner of everything and may take whatever he chooses to take. He may make no compensation for what he takes. This power we know as the right of eminent domain. Its existence was the prompting for the common constitutional limitation "that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation." The very restriction upon the exercise of the absolute power to take implies its existence. This principle of ultimate ownership is the basis for what is known as the right of escheat. The right is absolute, but the sovereign will not exercise it except in the absence of other owner claimants.
There can be no question of the possession by Pennsylvania of the so called "right of escheat." The limitation of which we have spoken exists because every sovereign is bound by the necessities of the case to restrict the exercise of his sovereign powers to his own domains. If he did not there would be trouble. He is assumed to so agree. Pennsylvania would not, for illustration, assert the power to escheat property in New Jersey. Why? Because New Jersey is also a sovereign power with the right to escheat property within its domain. In no other way can a clash be avoided. Precisely the same principle applies to the United States. It is likewise a sovereign.
Out of this situation a conflict of rival claims might arise, the discussion provoked by which would be very interesting. Into this as yet we see no reason to go....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Klein
...On October 17, 1934, the court below entered an order denying the prayer of the Commonwealth's petition without prejudice. Klein v. Brodbeck, D.C., 15 F.Supp. 473. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania thereupon filed a petition with the Court of Common Pleas No. 5 of Philadelphia County, Pennsy......
-
In re Commercial Nat. Bank
...are given original jurisdiction. I am confronted at the outset with a dictum of the late Judge Dickinson in the case of Klein v. Brodbeck, D.C., 15 F.Supp. 473, to the effect that this court has no jurisdiction to enter a judgment of escheat in a suit brought by the escheator of the Commonw......
-
In re MacMasters
...of New York have no title to the abandoned moneys until there has been an adjudication of escheat by the State Court, Klein v. Brodbeck, D.C., E.D.Pa., 15 F.Supp. 473, 474 second column; 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 851 and 852; McKinney's Consolidated Laws, book 2-½, New York Abandoned Property Law, sec......
-
Application of Commonwealth of Massachusetts
...whether the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or otherwise, can be awarded the money only upon full proof of right thereto. Klein v. Brodbeck, D.C.E.D.Pa., 15 F.Supp. 473. This means that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as would any other claimant, must be required to show their title to the......