holding that the intention of the President was the controlling factor on what would be binding
How later courts described this case
- holding that the intention of the President was the controlling factor on what would be binding
- illegal exaction jurisdiction from property seizure
- money damages for improper governmental seizure of New York bank deposits of a foreign corporation
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WHITAKER, Judge
(dissenting).
I think jurisdiction to recover property seized by the Alien Property Custodian is expressly denied this court by section 9(f) of the Trading with the Enemy Act, supra. It reads:
“Except as herein provided, the money or other property conveyed, transferred, assigned, delivered, or' paid to the Alien Property Custodian, shall not be liable to lien, attachment, garnishment, trustee process, or execution, or subject to any order or decree of any court.”
Numerous cases cited in the defendant’s brief support this view.