Oetjen v. Central Leather Co 1918, Nos. 268
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | CLARKE |
| Citation | 246 U.S. 297,62 L.Ed. 726,38 S.Ct. 309 |
| Parties | OETJEN v. CENTRAL LEATHER CO. (two cases). Argued Jan. 3 and 4, 1918. Decided |
| Decision Date | 11 March 1918 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 268,269 |
v.
CENTRAL LEATHER CO. (two cases).
[Syllabus from 297-298 intentionally omitted]
Page 298
Messrs. John M. Enright and James D. Carpenter, Jr., both of Jersey City, N. J., for plaintiff in error.
Page 299
Mr. Eli J. Blair, of New York City, for defendant is error.
Mr. Justice CLARKE delivered the opinion of the Court.
These two cases involving the same question, were argued and will be decided together. They are suits in replevin and involve the title to two large consignments of hides, which the plaintiff in error claims to own as assignee of Martinez & Co., a partnership engaged in business in the city of Torreon, Mexico, but which the defendant in error claims to own by purchase from the Finnegan-Brown Company, a Texas corporation which it is alleged purchased the hides in Mexico from General Francisco Villa on January 3, 1914.
The cases were commenced in a circuit court of New Jersey in which judgments were rendered for the defendants, which were affirmed by the Court of Errors and Appeals (87 N. J. Law, 552, 94 Atl. 789, L. R. A. 1917A, 276; 87 N. J. Law, 704, 96 Atl. 1102), and they are brought to this court on the theory that the claim of title to the hides by the defendant in error is invalid because based upon a purchase from General Villa, who, it is urged, confiscated them contrary to the provisions of the Hague onvention of 1907 respecting the laws and customs of war on land; that the judgment of the state court denied to the plaintiff in error this right which he 'set up and claimed' under the Hague Convention or treaty; and that this denial gives him the right of review in this court.
A somewhat detailed description will be necessary of the political conditions in Mexico prior to and at the time of the seizure of the property in controversy by the military authorities. It appears in the record, and is a matter of general history, that on February 23, 1913, Madero, President of the Republic of Mexico, was assassinated; that immediately thereafter General Huerta declared himself Provisional President of the Republic
Page 300
and took the oath of office as such; that on the 26th day of March following General Carranza, who was then governor of the state of Coahuila, inaugurated a revolution against the claimed authority of Huerta and in a 'Manifesto Addressed to the Mexican Nation' proclaimed the organization of a constitutional government under 'the plan of Guadalupe,' and that civil war was at once entered upon between the followers and forces of the two leaders. When General Carranza assumed the leadership of what were called the Constitutionalist forces he commissioned General Villa his representative, as 'Commander of the North,' and assigned him to an independent command in that part of the country. Such progress was made by the Carranza forces that in the autumn of 1913 they were in military possession, as the record shows, of approximately two-thirds of the area of the entire country, with the exception of a few scattered towns and cities, and after a battle lasting several days the city of Torreon in the state of Coahuila was captured by General Villa on October 1 of that year. Immediately after the capture of Torreon, Villa proposed levying a military contribution on the inhabitants, for the support of his army, and thereupon influential citizens, preferring to provide the required money by an assessment upon the community, to having their property forcibly seized, called together a largely attended meeting and after negotiations with General Villa as to the amount to be paid, an assessment was made on the men of property of the city, which was in large part promptly paid. Martinez, the owner from whom the plaintiff in error claims title to the property involved in this case, was a wealthy resident of Torreon and was a dealer in hides in a large way. Being an adherent of Huerta, when Torreon was captured Martinez...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
South Puerto Rico Sugar Co. Trad. Corp. v. United States, No. 378-61.
...9 The same finding was later made for the first quarter of 1961 (25 F.R. 13864, Dec. 29, 1960). 10 See Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297, 302, 38 S.Ct. 309, 62 L.Ed. 726 (1918); United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 319-321, 57 S.Ct. 216, 81 L.Ed. 255 (1936);......
-
Banco de Espana v. Federal Reserve Bank, No. 370-372.
...decisions of the Supreme Court, including Underhill v. Hernandez, 168 U.S. 250, 18 S.Ct. 83, 42 L.Ed. 456; Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297, 38 S.Ct. 309, 62 L.Ed. 726; and Ricaud v. American Metal Co., 246 U. S. 304, 38 S.Ct. 312, 62 L.Ed. 733. That these three rulings involved ......
-
Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Farr
...The Amendment may also fall within the ambit of implied congressional power over foreign relations. Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297, 302, 38 S.Ct. 309, 62 L.Ed. 726 (1918); Henkin, "The Law of the Land and Foreign Relations," 107 U.Pa.L.Rev. 903, 913-22 (1959); see United States......
-
Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., Civil No. 01–1357RCL
...where challenged actions by foreign militaries were taken pursuant to official orders. See69 F.Supp.3d 88Oetjen v. Cent. Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297, 300–01, 303–04, 38 S.Ct. 309, 62 L.Ed. 726 (1918) (stating that the actions of a “duly commissioned military commander” were “not subject to re......
-
South Puerto Rico Sugar Co. Trad. Corp. v. United States, No. 378-61.
...9 The same finding was later made for the first quarter of 1961 (25 F.R. 13864, Dec. 29, 1960). 10 See Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297, 302, 38 S.Ct. 309, 62 L.Ed. 726 (1918); United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 319-321, 57 S.Ct. 216, 81 L.Ed. 255 (1936);......
-
Banco de Espana v. Federal Reserve Bank, No. 370-372.
...decisions of the Supreme Court, including Underhill v. Hernandez, 168 U.S. 250, 18 S.Ct. 83, 42 L.Ed. 456; Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297, 38 S.Ct. 309, 62 L.Ed. 726; and Ricaud v. American Metal Co., 246 U. S. 304, 38 S.Ct. 312, 62 L.Ed. 733. That these three rulings involved ......
-
Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Farr
...The Amendment may also fall within the ambit of implied congressional power over foreign relations. Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297, 302, 38 S.Ct. 309, 62 L.Ed. 726 (1918); Henkin, "The Law of the Land and Foreign Relations," 107 U.Pa.L.Rev. 903, 913-22 (1959); see Uni......
-
Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., Civil No. 01–1357RCL
...where challenged actions by foreign militaries were taken pursuant to official orders. See69 F.Supp.3d 88Oetjen v. Cent. Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297, 300–01, 303–04, 38 S.Ct. 309, 62 L.Ed. 726 (1918) (stating that the actions of a “duly commissioned military commander” were “not subject to re......
-
International Climate Action Without Congress: Does §115 of the Clean Air Act Provide Sufficient Authority?
...which are, by the constitution and laws, submitted to the executive, can never be made in this court.”). 76. Oetjen v. Cent. Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297, 302 (1918); accord Chicago & S. Lines v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 333 U.S. 103, 111 (1948) (“[T]he very nature of executive decisions as to......
-
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - AMERICA'S DRONE WAR ABROAD - JABER V. UNITED STATES.
...analysis of the political question doctrine, the courts must examine where the government authority arises. Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297, 302 (1918) (holding executive and legislative branches responsible for conduct of foreign relations). Oetjen was one of the Supreme Court'......
-
Void and Punishable Acts of State in International Law
...[Berlin, 1924-29]. p. 232), and the Mohican case (John Bassett Moore,Digest of International Law [Washington, 1906], Vol. II, p. 590).18 246 U. S. 297 (1918); see also E. D. Dickinson, The Law of Nations (New York, 1929), p. 187Every sovereign State is bound to respect the independence of e......