Petition for Writ of Certiorari — First National City Bank v. Gillilland

=

i

os IN THE

Supreme € edhe of the United. States

Oc TOBER Te le rs

OEE

-

THE Fins Narion al Cig ack in New York,

Petitioner,

‘ *

id

e i

WHITNEY GifiinaNnp. PeanioCarrer Pace and. HENRY.

J. Cay, constituting the Foreign Claims Settlement

Commission of the United States, and Roperr 2B.

» ANDERSON, as Secretary of the "Tregsury of the

United States of America, —

KS Abs, ; ip ue

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

~ FL Groyp AWALT,

we. Vv. 3 over

S22 Connecticut Avenue, . JW.

Washington.6, D.C.

JOHN A. WILSON

M. Van Vooruies: =

20 Exchange Place

New York a b =,

Counsel for Petitioner

SHEARMAN €S STERLING & W RIGHT

20 Exchange P lace

New York 5°N.-¥. >

Of Counsel :

“ oe J

= e "ia

! |

_ Appendix A—Opinion Below |;

JABLE OF CONTESTS re at

. PAGE.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI --

Opinions Below

> aes

Jurisdiction Ree eh AL ae NRE Seren PAY eftee Dice eae

Questions Presemiee 3. ot

‘Statutes and Executive Agreement Involved ___-

NE Lee hau

| Reasons for Granting the Writ A Rte

1D cde nnamiuiiowniaasaes oso oS RTT A

Be Sse ind ch a wenn ana ecard ee

a ee ee

MP he ee aa ics ea

W Bicwnnaccsoue BC a lane er near oe

‘Appendix B—Judgment Below

Appendix C—Statutes and Exec sutive Agreement

Inv olyed .

DECISIONS AND AUTHORITIES

Aveardi v, Shaughnessy, -347 U. S: 260 (1953)

Blaneo v. Valez, 295 N.Y. 224 (1946)

- Brannan Stark, 87 U.S. App. D. C. 388, 185 F..

2d 871, hie 342 USS. 451 |

Crowell r, Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 89 (1932) ~

es TABLE OF CONTENTS

Disinuke r. United States, 297 U. S..167 ( 1936)

Extep v. United States, $27 U.S. PI4, 126-151

( 1946)

Friede Attachment Claim ~ ,

Harmon e Brueker, 3% U.S. 579 (19! 58) 2-

‘Hirsh af Auer, 146.N. ¥. 3a > ( 1895 »)

Hospoder v. United States, 209 I. 2d 427, 429

(3rd Cir. 1953) a s4 See ise

.Margareten 1. Margareten, 76 N. Y. S. 2d 854

(1947) ; [peel eh Sl pce tase ap as

Marshall vr. Brucker, 356. U.S. 24 (1958) ?

Order of ng y Sommuctars y- Swan, 329 ‘Cv. S.

Tal v. ae, 349 U.S. 331°(1953)

- Ralph rv, Cronk, 266 N,°Y. 428 (1934) |

Service vr. Dulles, 354 U.S 363 (1957 )\ -

Siegel vr. U hited States, 87 Pus. 399 CE. D. N. YY,

1949) - es aoe

Social Sec urity Board r. Nierotko, 3 327.U. S- 358,

369 (1946) °

St: ee Stockyards Co. rv United States, 298°

U.S. 38 (1936)

Stark v. Wickard, 321 U. S. 288, 310 yey

U.S. Electric ‘al, Motors vr. Jones, 80.0, App,

D. C. 329, 153 F. 2d 134 (1936)

— United States v. National City Bank, 90 F. S.-448.

$55 (1950) | se

United States vr. Pink, 315 U.S. 208, 225, 298, 23

252 (1941) | 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS lil

Coa wrk : , ay.

CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES CITED

Section 314, 22 USC § 164m 8. 2

Administrative Procedure Act $10 arta:

Yifth- Amendment to the Arcus Soe eae © *

Constitution, Art. ILI, See. re mae * Be

New York, Civil Practice Ait (1932) ¢ §2 fs

Soviet Claims Act of. 7955, i. e. Inferno ioe

——Claims Settlement Act, § 305 et seq. _. me © ae

Section 305(a) (1), 22 USC § 1641d(a)(1)" “11, 14,15,

“ "TREATISES AND OTHER’ MATERIALS ‘CITED .

_ Dobie on Federal Pr ocedure, § 9.102, pp. 409-410 ~ o-

Hackworth, Digest of International Law (1st-Ed.) -

1943, Vol. V, pp. 802-851; 3» BOF; 805-809 ; $13; 831 17°

Clay, Aspects of Settling Chews under Yugoslav.

. Agreement of 1948, 43 Georgetown L. J. 582-614

at pages 597; 610- 611 (1953) —_. _: 17, 18 ©

Litvinov ris asa of November 16, 1933 3,8, 9, 10,

Wl, 12, 13, 21, 23

1 Scott on Trusts, See. 52, pp. 354-55 ava ae

Senate Report, U. S.. Code, Congressional and

Administrative News (1955) Vol. 2 p. 2750-. a ao

Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Seta

on H. RB. 6382 (1929)

. : a <ieh aen One seas ee , eer

ae ‘ 3

zy

“ | | | ; IN THE

— Supreshe Court of the Buiied Stairs

| ue OcToBER TERM, 1958 ?

- THE First Natio AL erry Bank oF NEW York, »

_ Petitioner,

(a

WHITNEY Guna. ILLAND, ‘PE k Pact E nad Shancns

_ J. Cay, constituting the Hoseign Claims: Settlement — ,

Coltuniadixin of the United Statesf@hd Rosert B.

_ ANDERSON, as Secretary. of ’the’ Preenty of the

. #nited States or America, oy

yes

_ Responde nts.

" :

7 PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

‘UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

- DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRC

\

ee

To THE E HONORABLE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE ‘idee

CIATE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME Cougr OF THE

_ Unitep STATES: Oo

Your petitioner, The First. National City

_of New York, respectfully requests that a. writ of.

certiorari issue to review the judgment of the United

States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia -

Circuit, entered in the above entitled case on June 12,

1958, which affirmed the judgment of the — Court |

for the District of € ‘olumbia.

2

~ Opinions BeldW —

The opinion of the Court of Appeals is not vet

. Officially reported but is printed in the record (RR. 164-

171), and also as Appendix A to this petition.

§ .

The opinion of the District Court is not offic sially

reported bit is printed in the record (R. Ad2-4).

eae J urisdiction | | :

The Sebiniee of the Court of Appeals, printed as

Appendix B to this petition, w as entered on June BP,

1958 (R.172). The jurisdiction of this Court is in-

voked under 28 USC § 1254(1). s.

The Distriet not had jurisdiction of the. action

under 28 USC'S ) 1581, 2201, and 5 USC § 1009.

: ais ns as o, of

“ |

The questions presented are as > toto "S:

1. Where.the Foreign Claims Settlement OniMis-

~ sion has erroneously interpreted the jurisdic tion con:

. ferred upon it by: Congress and has refused to consider

petitioner's claim on the merits solely by retison of that .

misinterpretation, and has thus | depriv ed petitioner of

ifs constitutional right, to dwé process under the Fifth:

Amendment : — dees’ not the United States District

Court have the power and the duty ‘to ‘intervene te

declare “the t true jurisdiction of the Commission aad -

to direct the Comnfission’ to determine )jetitioner’s

claim on the merits, despite the nonrevigwability pre

visions of the-governing statute? .-

NN

” ° e ° e

ia 2

J

)

°-

“3

2. Since petitioner’s claim is based tipon an attach-°

zs ment-judgment lien, adjudicated-under the laws of New

York against. the New York funds of a Russian corpo-

ration, now‘part of the Soviet Claims: Fund, and since |

petitioner has been at all times the full beneticial owner

of said lien, and holder of the full- legal title as well -

prior to the Litvinov Assignment : — is not such denial

of petitioner's claim, with resultant deprivation of peti-

tioner’s vested property rights, a violation of peti-

tioner’s constitutional right to just compensation under

the Fifth Amendment, requiring. corrective judicial

intervention ?

3. Did Congress intend that the nonreviewability

provision of the governing statute, should confer upon -

the Conmission exclusive power to ‘determine, for

itself, the extent of the jurisdiction conferred upon

it by the statute, and the power to deny constitutional

riglits; and if Congress did so intend, does not the non-

reviewability provision violate the Fifth Amendment

and the judiciary. clause, Art. III, Section 2, of the’

United States Constitution?

Saintes’ and Packative ‘Agreement Involved

There are printed in Appendix C to this petition:

(1) The pertinent provisions of the International ©

~~ Claims Settlement Act of 1949, as amended in: 1955,

to provide fur attachment-judgment:lien claims of

United’ States nationals against “funds of Russian

“tationals, and. for claims of United States nationals

@eainst the Soviet Union; (2) Section 10 of the Admin-

istrative Procedure Act; (3) the Litvinov Assignment

.."

-of November 16, 1933; and (4) New York Civil Prac- ,

tiee Act (1932), § om