Miller v. Schutte

• Decision Date: 05 February 1923
• Docket Number: 3844.
• Citation: 287 F. 604
• Parties: MILLER, Alien Property Custodian, et al. v. SCHUTTE et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

287 F. 604

MILLER, Alien Property Custodian, et al. v. SCHUTTE et al.

No. 3844.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia.

February 5, 1923

Submitted December 15, 1922.

Rehearing Denied February 24, 1923.

Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.

Peyton Gordon and Dean H. Stanley, all of Washington, D.C., for appellants.

John Wilson Brown, 3d, and Alfred K. Neppert, both of Washington D.C., for appellees.

Before VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice, and SMITH and MARTIN, Judges of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.

MARTIN Acting Associate Justice.

In this case a bill of complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, the plaintiffs being Frederick Schutte, as administrator of the estate of Carl Schutte, deceased, and Fritz Schutte. These names however, apply to the same person, who sues in both a representative and individual capacity. The defendants are the Alien Property Custodian and the Treasurer of the United States, and the suit is brought to recover certain property now in their custody under the law known as the Trading with the Enemy Act.

It appears that Carl Schutte was a citizen and resident of Germany, and died in that country about two months before war was declared between the United States and Germany. At the time of his death he was the owner of 1,850 shares of the capital stock of the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey represented by certificate No. 18870. For a number of years the certificate had been left for safe keeping at the company's office in this country subject to the owner's orders, and it remained there at the time of his death.

The decedent left a widow and seven children surviving him, of whom the plaintiff is one. All of these were citizens and residents of Germany except the plaintiff, who although a German citizen actually resided in the state of New York. The decedent had not been in this country for more than 50 years preceding his death. He had no creditors in this country, and owned no property here, except the shares of stock now in question. He possessed an estate in Germany, which apparently came into the hands of the family there.

On August 7, 1918, the Alien Property Custodian determined that Carl Schutte was an alien enemy under the statute, and the stock aforesaid was accordingly taken over by the custodian, and is still retained by him together with certain dividends since paid upon it. On July 5, 1919, the plaintiff was appointed by the surrogate of the county of New York as administrator of the estate of the decedent, and on December 14, 1921, he filed the present bill of complaint for the recovery of the aforesaid property. He claims individually to be the owner of one-eighth of it as an heir of the decedent, and as administrator he claims possession of the entire property as assets of the decedent's estate. The defendants contest both claims.

Upon a trial of the case the Supreme Court held against the claim of the plaintiff as an individual, and decreed that as to that claim the bill of complaint should be, and the same was, dismissed. No exception was taken by the plaintiff to that decree, nor did he appeal from it; accordingly the claim of the plaintiff as an individual is not involved in this appeal.

But the court sustained the claim of plaintiff as administrator, and decreed that the defendants should forthwith transfer said property to the plaintiff as administrator aforesaid, upon the condition nevertheless that plaintiff should enter into an approved bond in the sum of $1,350,000, in favor of said defendants, conditioned upon the return to them 'after due administration of the estate of Carl Schutte has been had, of such portion of the aforesaid stock and dividends accrued thereon as shall be determined by the Surrogate's Court, county of New York, state of New York, to be distributable to persons who, at the date of the signing of this decree, are enemies as defined by the Trading with the Enemy Act as amended.' The defendants appealed from the decree. The appeal accordingly raises the question whether the plaintiff as administrator aforesaid was entitled to recover the entire property in question from the Alien Property Custodian, upon the condition nevertheless that he should first file a bond as provided by the decree of the trial court.

Under the law known as the Trading with the Enemy Act, 40 Stat. 411, as amended Id. 1020, it was enacted that any money or other property, choses in action, and rights and claims of every character and description owing or belonging to or held for, by, on account of, or on behalf of, or for the benefit of, an enemy or ally of enemy, which the President after investigation should determine to be so owing or so belonging or so held, should be conveyed, transferred, assigned, delivered, or paid over to the Alien Property Custodian, to be administered and disposed of as provided in the act. An alien enemy was defined to be, among others, any individual residing within the territory of any nation then at war with the United States, and also such other individuals as may be natives, citizens, or subjects of any nation with which the United States was at war, as the President might by proclamation include within the term. Afterwards by executive order the power of determination aforesaid was invested by the President in the Alien Property Custodian.

The act further provided that any person not an enemy, or ally of enemy, claiming any interest, right, or title in any money or other property which may have been delivered to the Alien Property Custodian thereunder, or to whom any debt may be owing from an enemy, or ally of enemy, whose property or any part thereof shall have been delivered to the Alien Property Custodian thereunder, may...