Zimmermann v. Sutherland, No. 180
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | HOLMES |
| Citation | 47 S.Ct. 625,71 L.Ed. 1034,274 U.S. 253 |
| Parties | ZIMMERMANN et al. v. SUTHERLAND, Alien Property Custodian, et al |
| Docket Number | No. 180 |
| Decision Date | 16 May 1927 |
v.
SUTHERLAND, Alien Property Custodian, et al.
Page 254
Messrs. Charles E. Hughes and Joseph M. Hartfield, both of New York City, and Thomas P. Littlepage, of Washington, D. C., for appellants.
Mr. Samuel R. Wachtell, of New York City, for appellee Wiener Bank-Verein.
The Attorney General, Messrs. William D. Mitchell, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D. C., George R. Farnum, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Dean Hill Stanley, of Washington, D. C., for appellee Sutherland.
Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a suit to reach and apply property in the hands of the Alien Property Custodian or the Treasurer of the United States, seized as property of the Wiener Bank-Verein, as allowed by the amendment of the Trading with the Enemy Act of June 5, 1920, c. 241; 41 Stat. 977 (Comp. St. § 3115 1/2 e). The appellants were the plaintiffs. Before the late war they were depositors in the Wiener Bank-Verein, and on April 6, 1917, had on deposit 2,063,799.03 kronen.
Page 255
The war intervened and after the cessation of hostilities the plaintiffs demanded the amount of said kronen on deposit as of April 6, 1917, at the average call rate of exchange of the month preceding the outbreak of war between the United States and Austria-Hungary, viz., 11.18 United States cents for each Austrian krone. The General Civil Law of Austria, § 1425, provided that if a debt could not be paid because of dissatisfaction with the offer or other important reasons the debtor might deposit in court the subject-matter in dispute, and that if legally carried out and if the creditor was informed, this measure should discharge the debtor and place the subject-matter delivered at the risk of the creditor. The creditor not being satisfied with what the Bank was willing to do, the Bank, on April 1, 1920, deposited the amount stated to be due in the proper court, with interest at 2 1/2 per cent., and notified the plaintiffs. It relies upon the deposit as a defense, and the Circuit Court of Appeals held it to be one, 7 F.(2d) 443, overruling the decision of the District Court which allowed a recovery at the rate of exchange on August 12, 1919, on the ground that the plaintiffs showed that they wanted their money, although they made no adequate demand, on that day. Zimmerman v. Miller, 2 F. (2d) 629.
The decision of the Circuit Court of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. First National City Bank
...City Bank, 250 N.Y. 69, 164 N.E. 745 (1928); Zimmerman v. Hicks, 7 F.2d 443 (2d Cir., 1925), affirmed sub nom. Zimmermann v. Sutherland, 274 U.S. 253, 47 S.Ct. 625, 71 L.Ed. 1034 (1926). The separate entity theory is subject only to the exception that if the branch be closed or if demand fo......
-
United States v. First National City Bank, No. 59
...law which governs the contract, there can be no breach which would give rise to a cause of action in New York, Zimmermann v. Sutherland, 274 U.S. 253, 47 S.Ct. 625, 71 L.Ed. 1034. Furthermore the prospect is more than startling that a district court, aware that a foreign country would not e......
-
Jansson v. Swedish American Line, No. 4502.
...S.Ct. 955, 58 L.Ed. 1457; Deutsche Bank v. Humphrey, 1926, 272 U.S. 517, 519, 47 S. Ct. 166, 71 L.Ed. 383; Zimmermann v. Sutherland, 1927, 274 U.S. 253, 255, 47 S.Ct. 625, 71 L.Ed. 1034; Home Ins. Co. v. Dick, 1930, 281 U.S. 397, 408, 50 S.Ct. 338, 74 L.Ed. 926; Hartford Accident & Indemnit......
-
Dougherty v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States
...the place of performance generally governs the contract and its discharge. Restatement, Conflict of Laws § 385; Zimmermann v. Sutherland, 274 U. S. 253, 47 S. Ct. 625, 71 L. Ed. 1034; 2 Wharton on Conflict of Laws (3d Ed. 1905) § 467b; 1 Joyce on Insurance (2d Ed. 1917) § 225. But we are no......
-
United States v. First National City Bank
...City Bank, 250 N.Y. 69, 164 N.E. 745 (1928); Zimmerman v. Hicks, 7 F.2d 443 (2d Cir., 1925), affirmed sub nom. Zimmermann v. Sutherland, 274 U.S. 253, 47 S.Ct. 625, 71 L.Ed. 1034 (1926). The separate entity theory is subject only to the exception that if the branch be closed or if demand fo......
-
United States v. First National City Bank, No. 59
...law which governs the contract, there can be no breach which would give rise to a cause of action in New York, Zimmermann v. Sutherland, 274 U.S. 253, 47 S.Ct. 625, 71 L.Ed. 1034. Furthermore the prospect is more than startling that a district court, aware that a foreign country would not e......
-
Jansson v. Swedish American Line, No. 4502.
...S.Ct. 955, 58 L.Ed. 1457; Deutsche Bank v. Humphrey, 1926, 272 U.S. 517, 519, 47 S. Ct. 166, 71 L.Ed. 383; Zimmermann v. Sutherland, 1927, 274 U.S. 253, 255, 47 S.Ct. 625, 71 L.Ed. 1034; Home Ins. Co. v. Dick, 1930, 281 U.S. 397, 408, 50 S.Ct. 338, 74 L.Ed. 926; Hartford Accident & Indemnit......
-
Dougherty v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States
...the place of performance generally governs the contract and its discharge. Restatement, Conflict of Laws § 385; Zimmermann v. Sutherland, 274 U. S. 253, 47 S. Ct. 625, 71 L. Ed. 1034; 2 Wharton on Conflict of Laws (3d Ed. 1905) § 467b; 1 Joyce on Insurance (2d Ed. 1917) § 225. But we are no......