The Oropa
| Docket Number | Case No. 135 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama |
| Date | 01 January 1920 |
War — Effect on Private Rights — Effects of War on Contracts — Alien Enemies — Suspension of Right to Sue — Partnership with an Alien Enemy.
Two actions involving the effect of war upon private rights acquired prior to hostilities were considered by United States District Courts in 1919 and 1920. In the earlier case (The Oropa, 255 Fed. 132) the District Court for the Southern District of Alabama was called upon to consider whether a suit brought by an alien enemy prior to the declaration of war should be dismissed. The court (per Ervin, District Judge) found that the older rule, that an alien enemy had no standing in the courts during hostilities, had been modified. An action commenced by him prior to the outbreak of hostilities should not be dismissed but continued until the conclusion of peace. See also Galveston H. and S.A. Ry. Co. v. Blankfield, Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, March 13, 1919, 211 S.W. 808; Held v. GoldsmithENR, Supreme Court of Louisiana, March 14, 1919, April 2, 1923 (on rehearing), 153 La. 598, 96 S.W. 272.
The later action (Springer v. Garvan, Alien Property Custodian, et Al.UNK, 276 Fed. 595) involved a slightly different point, but of the same general category. In this instance an American citizen had entered into an agreement with German subjects in 1914 to look after two of the latter's children while they were on a visit to Germany, complainant to be reimbursed for all expenses made by him on behalf of the children. After the outbreak of war between Germany and the United States, complainant expended certain sums on behalf of the children and sought to recover from the assets of the parents seized by the Alien Property Custodian. In an opinion delivered by Judge Peck for the United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, it was found that that portion of complainant's claim arising out of performance of the contract after passage of the Trading with the Enemy Act must be disallowed. That Act was not intended merely to prohibit those contracts between citizens and enemy aliens forbidden by the common law, that is, contracts involving intercourse or communication or which might benefit the enemy or be a detriment to the United States. No distinction was made between types of contract by the Trading with the Enemy Act. See also In re Kuntsch's Estate, Surrogate's Court, New York County, March 16, 1921, 114 Misc. 694, 187 N.Y. Supp. 245; Cohn et Al. v. James C. Gismond...
To continue reading
Request your trial