McGrath v. American Nat. Bank of Denver
| Decision Date | 08 December 1953 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 3754. |
| Parties | McGRATH, Atty. Gen. v. AMERICAN NAT. BANK OF DENVER. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
Charles S. Vigil, U. S. Atty., of Denver, Colo., Harold I. Boynton, James D. Hill, Albert Parker, and William H. Arkin, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.
Pershing, Bosworth, Dick & Dawson, Fritz A. Nagel, Denver, Colo., for defendant and Schaetzel & Schaetzel, Philip G. Gregg, Denver, Colo., for intervenors.
The matter is presently before this Court upon the motion of Conrad Bantel, Bertha Spengler, Helene Lieb and Wilhelm Nagel for leave to intervene, and upon the motions by both the plaintiff and defendant to dismiss this proceeding.
This action was filed by the plaintiff as successor to the Alien Property Custodian for the enforcement of a Vesting Order 17921, dated May 24, 1951, issued under the authority of The Trading With the Enemy Act, as amended, Title 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 1 et seq., and Executive Order 9193, as amended, 50 U.S. C.A.Appendix, § 6 note, which covered a certain undivided two-thirds interest in a trust estate in the possession, custody and control of the defendant acting as trustee for the alien beneficiaries to same, being also the petitioners herein.
Following certain procedural steps the defendant complied with the above-numbered Vesting Order and paid over to the plaintiff the undivided two-thirds interest in and to the property in question, being the relief sought in the complaint herein.
The petitioners thereafter filed their motion for leave to intervene under the provisions of Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. Oral argument, supplemented by briefs, has been had upon petitioners' motion for leave to intervene.
After analyzing the arguments submitted herein the conclusion seems inescapable that the petitioners' motion for leave to intervene must be denied. The cases interpreting the appropriate section of The Trading With the Enemy Act, Title 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 17 are unanimous in concluding that actions commenced in the district court under this section are summary proceedings to compel delivery of possession of enemy-owned property which has been effectively seized by a valid vesting order, leaving the party claiming title thereto to a subsequent suit. Clark v. Manufacturers Trust Co., 2 Cir., 169 F.2d 932; McGrath v. Manufacturers Trust Co., 338 U.S. 241, 70 S.Ct. 4, 94 L.Ed. 31; Hicks v. Baltimore & Ohio Ry. Co., D.C., 10 F.2d 606; Commercial Trust Co. v. Miller, 3 Cir., 281 F. 804; Id., 262 U.S. 51, 43 S.Ct. 486, 67 L.Ed. 858; In re Miller, 2 Cir., 281 F. 764; Schaefer v. Miller, 262 U.S. 760, 43 S.Ct. 519, 67 L. Ed. 1220; Garvan v. Commercial Trust Co. of New Jersey, D.C., 282 F. 943; and Ahrenfeldt v. Miller, 262 U.S. 60, 43 S.Ct. 490, 67 L.Ed. 863.
A case which seems to be particularly pertinent to the question herein raised by petitioners' motion for leave to intervene, is Clark v. E. J. Lavino & Co., D.C., 72 F.Supp. 497, wherein the opinion stated:
"An action instituted under section 17 of the Trading with the Enemy Act by the Attorney...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Ricou v. International Paper Co.
-
Brownell v. New York Trust Company
...§ 1631f). Intervention is not contemplated by the Act in a summary proceeding of this character. See McGrath v. American National Bank of Denver, D.C.Colo.1953, 117 F.Supp. 133. The motions for summary judgment and for permission to intervene are denied. So 1 These sections expressly provid......