Sturchler v. Hicks

• Citation: 17 F.2d 321
• Parties: STURCHLER v. HICKS, Allen Property Custodian, et al.
• Decision Date: 16 April 1926
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

17 F.2d 321 (1926)

STURCHLER v. HICKS, Allen Property Custodian, et al.

District Court, E. D. New York.

April 16, 1926.

Avery & Whiting, of New York City (Earl B. Barnes, of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.

William A. De Groot, U. S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N. Y. (Thomas E. Rhodes, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for defendants.

INCH, District Judge.

This is a suit in equity, brought by plaintiff as administrator of the estate of Martha Elizabeth Peipers, deceased, to recover certain property alleged to have belonged to said decedent at the time of her death.

The suit is brought against the Alien Property Custodian and the Treasurer of the United States.

The right, if any, of this administrator to recover, is dependent entirely on statute, to wit, the act known as the Trading with the Enemy Act (Act October 6, 1917, c. 106, § 1 40 Stat. 411, being Comp. St. § 3115½a; Act March 4, 1923, c. 285, § 1 42 Stat. 1511, being Comp. St. § 3115½e).

Unless therefore authority is shown plainly to exist in said statute there can be no recovery in this suit. The burden of proof to show facts in accordance with the above rests on plaintiff.

The record of the trial is informal. The defendant offered no proof in rebuttal, while the plaintiff contented himself with offering in evidence ten exhibits and entering into a stipulation with the defendant by which the testimony of a witness should be taken by deposition and submitted later to the court.

Counsel for plaintiff thus stated the purpose of such testimony: "We are endeavoring to have here by 2 o'clock a relative of the family who can testify that this lady (Mrs. Kate Von Reichenau, a daughter of decedent) is the sole heir at law and that she is entitled to the property." This deposition was duly taken March 23, 1926, and submitted.

The exhibits, above mentioned, consist of:

Exhibit 1. A certified copy of letters of administration dated August 6, 1925, by the surrogate of New York county, on the estate of Martha Elizabeth Peipers, who died a resident of Germany. (The administrator resides in Nassau county.)

Exhibit 2. A certificate from the clerk of the Southern District Court, New York County, showing that the administrator is still acting.

Exhibit 3. The file of the Department of Justice, showing the granting by President Harding on June 19, 1923, of the application of Martha Elizabeth Peipers for executive allowance and the return of property held by the Alien Property Custodian. (This property was different property from that now in question.)

Exhibit 4. Report of the Guaranty Trust Company to the Alien Property Custodian, showing that it reported to the Custodian that it held 20 bonds of the Chicago, St. Louis & New Orleans Railroad Company, registered in the name of said daughter, Kate Von Reichenau for account of the Deutsche Bank of Berlin.

Exhibit 5. Report of Speyer & Co. to the Alien Property Custodian, showing that it held for account of the Deutsche Bank a $500 bond of the Central Pacific Railway.

Exhibit 6. A report of Mueller, Schall & Co. to the Alien Property Custodian, showing that it held for the account of the Deutsche Bank 45 shares of the German American Bank of New York in the name of said Kate Von Reichenau.

Exhibit 7. A certified extract from the books of the Deutsche Bank, showing that the above 20 bonds of the Chicago, St. Louis & New Orleans, $500 of the Central Pacific Railway, and 45 shares of the German American Bank, had been held by it from December 31, 1916, until August 19, 1920, as the property of Mrs. Hugo Peipers (the said Martha Elizabeth Peipers).

Exhibit 8. Certificate of marriage of the said daughter of the decedent to Von Reichenau.

Exhibit 9. Photostat copy of the certificate of naturalization of the father of said Kate Von Reichenau.

The above is all the record. There was no motion made by either party for judgment, but apparently the record is intended to represent a completed trial, and I shall accordingly deem that both sides intended to and did rest, and that the case is submitted to me as if this formally appeared on the record. Both sides have submitted briefs, and plaintiff must stand or fall on this record.

The estate of the decedent is being administered in New York county, Southern district, of New York. A court of that county appointed the administrator.

The statute in question (Act March 4, 1923) provides: "Said claimant may institute a suit in equity * * * in the District Court of the United States for the district in which such claimant resides." The administrator resides in Nassau county, Eastern district, of New York. This court (Eastern district) has jurisdiction. New York Evening Post Co. v. Chaloner (C. C. A.) 265 F. 204.

Coming to the merits, it appears that decedent, Martha Elizabeth Peipers, was borne in New York City of American parents and married Hugo Peipers October 10, 1867. The marriage occurred in New York City. Mr. Peipers at that time was a German subject, but five years afterwards became an American citizen. Mrs. Peipers therefore was a citizen of the United States, who prior to April 6, 1917, intermarried with a subject of the King of Prussia, which state was later incorporated in the German Empire. Mr. and Mrs. Peipers continued for some years to reside in New York, and during that time apparently two children were born to them, a son, Hugo Peipers, who died, and a daughter, the said Kate Peipers Reichenau, who continued to reside with her parents until she was about 18 years of age, when her father and mother and herself all went to Germany to live. Mr. Peipers thereafter died. The said Kate Peipers, after being abroad about four years and on October 9, 1891, married in Germany, a German subject Franz Von Reichenau.

On December 31, 1922, Mrs. Von Reichenau's mother (the said decedent) died in Germany, so that I am satisfied from the proof submitted that the said Kate Von Reichenau is the sole next of kin and heir at law of said decedent. She, however, is not the plaintiff here. The plaintiff is the administrator of the estate of her mother. This is a distinction which must not be lost sight of in view of the statute.

The natural desire to see an American born girl get property, which under ordinary circumstances she would undoubtedly receive, must yield to the statute.

Plaintiff has offered in evidence (Exhibit 3) the application and allowance by which it would appear that Martha Elizabeth Peipers (the decedent) claimed the return to her of securities and cash valued at some $52,000. This application bears the date of May 25, 1923. It was duly allowed by the President June 19, 1923, and apparently the money was paid. The value of this exhibit consists in the detailed facts as to Mrs. Peipers' citizenship, marriage, etc., all of which are there fully gone into, and, while the securities were different from those now sought to be recovered, I deem it sufficient to avoid the necessity of...