Miller v. Camp
| Decision Date | 12 April 1922 |
| Docket Number | 1450. |
| Citation | 280 F. 520 |
| Parties | MILLER, Alien Property Custodian, v. CAMP et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
Damon G. Yerkes, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty., of Jacksonville, Fla., and Dean Hill Stanley, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Anderson & Anderson, of Ocala, Fla., for respondents.
On November 18, 1921, this court entered an order, on the petition of the Alien Property Custodian making the rule nisi theretofore issued absolute, and ordering and adjudging that said Alien Property Custodian, as such, have and recover from the respondents a certain amount of money. On November 26th respondents filed their petition to vacate and set aside the order and judgment entered on the 18th. It being impossible for the court to fix a day for hearing said petition before the commencement of the December term of court, an order was made continuing said matter to such day as it could be heard, in order that no right of respondents should be jeopardized. The matter now comes on for a hearing upon briefs filed by the parties.
There are three principal points urged by the respondents in their petition to vacate the order and judgment. They maintain that the court erred in making the rule nisi absolute. The questions raised by this contention I fully considered on the argument of the matter, and before the order of November 18th was entered, and am now of the same opinion as when the order was made.
They next take exception to the form of the judgment or order requiring them to pay over to the Alien Property Custodian the face of the promissory note and interest from date of demand. It is urged in support of this contention that respondents would be estopped from urging their contention that, while the note specified 'dollars,' the parties agreed that it should be paid in 'marks,' in any proceeding which might be brought by them under section 9 of the Trading with the Enemy Act (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St Ann. Supp. 1919, Sec. 3115 1/2e). This contention is refuted by the record in the case, showing the proceeding in which the order or judgment was entered. In my view, the portion of the order complained of in this behalf is no more than an order requiring the respondents to pay the sum to the Custodian. It is true the words 'have and recover' are used in the order, but the use of those words, instead of the words 'pay to' such Custodian, do not work an estoppel, or make...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
4115,4116,| United States ex rel. Miller v. Clausen
...U.S. 700, 41 Sup.Ct. 538, 65 L.Ed. 1178; Kohn v. Kohn (D.C.) 264 F. 253; Miller v. U.S., 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 268, 20 L.Ed. 135; Miller v. Camp (D.C.) 280 F. 520; re Miller (C.C.A.) 281 F. 773; Garvan v. Marconi Wireless Tel. Co. (D.C.) 275 F. 486; Garvan v. $20,000 Bonds (C.C.A.) 265 F. 477;......
-
In re Estate Rahn
...testator's will should be given effect. 40 Cyc. 1051; Boal v. Met. Mus. of Art, 298 F. 894; United States v. Hicks, 256 F. 707; Miller v. Camp, 280 F. 520. (4) The modern trend public policy is against interference with property rights of alien enemies, in time of war, except so far as may ......
-
Bowles v. Soverinsky, 5558.
...cessation of hostilities." To the same effect, Zimmerman v. Hicks, 2 Cir., 7 F.2d 443, Ex Parte Sichofsky, D.C., 273 F. 694, Miller v. Camp, D.C., 280 F. 520. Under these authorities this court must reject the defendants' contention that a state of war no longer exists between the United St......
-
Indus. Comm. v. Rotar
...in Swiss Nat. Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Miller, Alien Property Custodian, 267 U.S. 42, 45 S. Ct., 213, 69 L.Ed. 504; Miller, Alien Property Custodian, v. Camp, (D.C.), 280 F. 520; In Miller, Alien Property Custodian, (C.C.A.), 281 F. 764; Zimmerman v. Hicks, Alien Property Custodian, (C C.A.), 7 F......