Von Wedel v. Clark
| Decision Date | 01 June 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 11422.,11422. |
| Citation | 84 F. Supp. 299 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
| Parties | VON WEDEL v. CLARK, Attorney General, Successor to Allen Property Custodian. |
Alfred E. Modarelli, United States Attorney, and Edward V. Ryan, Assistant United States Attorney, Newark, N. J., and Sol Elson, Attorney, Office of Alien Property, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendant.
This is a suit in equity brought under Section 9(a) of the Trading with the Enemy Act, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 9(a), hereinafter referred to as the Act, to recover certain property vested in the Attorney General as successor to the Alien Property Custodian. The case is before the court on defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, in that it appears on the face of the complaint that the plaintiff has no interest, right or title in the property within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
The following facts are alleged in the complaint: Plaintiff, a citizen of the United States, is the wife of one Carl J. R. H. Von Wedel, a German national. Before leaving for Europe in 1939, Von Wedel executed a power of attorney to Peter J. Kooiman. In 1940 Kooiman, as attorney in fact, transferred the property to the plaintiff by way of gift. In 1947 the Attorney General, as successor to the Alien Property Custodian, vested the property in himself. Plaintiff has filed a notice of claim for the return of the property. The complaint also alleges that, "An express primary object of the giving of the power of attorney was to enable the donee to dispose of all or part of the donor's property in the United States by gift to the plaintiff herein or otherwise, as the attorney in fact might deem best under all the circumstances."
Under the Act one seeking to recover property must allege and prove that he has an interest, right, or title in such property. 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 9(a). Plaintiff's claim rests on the power of attorney and the alleged intention to authorize a gift.
The terms of the power, although broad and sweeping, contain no specific authorization to make a gift. In construing this document the court must keep in view the principles that powers of attorney are to be strictly construed, and that broad general phraseology is to be interpreted in the light of the specific powers authorized. Clark Car Co. v. Clark, 3 Cir., 11 F.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kozar v. Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company
... ... 1964); Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 409 F.2d 121 (2nd Cir. 1968); Case v. Abrams, 352 F.2d 193 (10th Cir. 1965); Clark v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 328 F.2d 591 (2nd Cir. 1964) ... At the pretrial conference of October 16, 1969, both parties submitted ... ...
-
King v. Bankerd
...meaningless verbiage, all-embracing expressions found in powers of attorney. Restatement, supra, § 34 comment h; see Von Wedel v. Clark, 84 F.Supp. 299, 300 (D.N.J.1949); Mercantile Trust Co. v. Harper, 622 S.W.2d 345, 349 (Mo.Ct.App.1981). Because powers of attorney are ordinarily very car......
-
Von Wedel v. McGrath
...Judge. The original complaint in this case was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, Von Wedel v. Clark, D.C., 84 F.Supp. 299, affirmed Von Wedel v. McGrath, 3 Cir., 180 F.2d 716, certiorari denied 340 U.S. 816, 71 S. Ct. 45. Plaintiff now seeks leave to......
-
Orban v. State Automobile Association
...(1954), Code 1951, § 40-417, Supp. IV. 2. 68 Stat. 124, 125, Ch. 222 (1954), Arts. III, IV, §§ 10, 16 and 18(1). 3. Cf. Von Wedel v. Clark, D.C.D.N.J., 84 F.Supp. 299, affirmed, Von Wedel v. Mc-Grath, 3 Cir., 180 F.2d 716, certiorari denied, 340 U.S. 816, 71 S.Ct. 45, 95 L. Ed. 600. 4. Bras......