PART IV. DIGEST OF REPORTED AND UNREPORTED CASES UNDER THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT DECIDED PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 1, 1923. CENTRAL UNION TRUST COMPANY v. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, JAN. 24, 1921. 254 U. S. 554, 65 Law. Ed. 403, 41 S. Ct. 214. This was the first case involving the Trading with the Enemy Act to reach the Supreme Court of the United States, and involved the question of the right of seizure before court determination. The case holds: (1) that decrees of the Circuit Court of Appeals affirming decrees of the District Court are renewable by writ of error; (2) that Congress has power in war time to provide for immediate seizure, leaving the question of enemy ownership to be settled later on suitable claims; (3) that section 17 of the Act confers on the District Court jurisdiction to enforce the demands of the Alien Property Custodian for delivery of the possession of property; (4) that upon a determination after investigation by the Custodian exercising the President's power of delegation under section 5 that certain securities were held by trustees for enemy insurance companies, followed by demand, the duty arose to deliver them to the Custodian; (5) that proceedings under section 17 are alternative to direct seizure under section 7, subd. c, and, (6) that so far as concerns claimants who proceed under section 9, a proceeding for possession gives merely a preliminary custody, although the Custodian may have broad powers of management or disposition. The Trustees claimed that the Alien Property Custodian could seize only property belonging to alien enemies; that he stands in their shoes, and could get no more than they could themselves. On the other hand, the Alien Property Custodian contended that he could conclusively determine what property is liable to seizure as being that of an alien enemy. As to the claim of the Trustees that they should hold as holders under section 8, the court held that section 8 referred to loans against collateral and matters of like kind. It was contended that the Alien Property Custodian would obtain considerably more than bare possession as his rights under the amendment of March 28, 1918, gave him power to sell and manage property as though he were the absolute owner; but the court pointed out that provisions under section 9 provided for immediate claim and suit and in such cases provided that the property be retained in the custody of the Alien Property Custodian. There fore, an original proceeding by the Alien Property Custodian gives nothing but preliminary custody where a claim is filed under section 9. The plaintiffs in error denied that the funds were enemy property, but claimed to hold as trustees for American policy holders and creditors of an enemy insurance company, as required by the laws of Massachusetts and Connecticut. Decrees against the plaintiffs in error were granted by the District Court, which decrees were upheld by the Circuit Court of Appeals. (265 Fed. 477.) The above appeal covered the cases of Garvan v. $20,000 of Bonds, 265 Fed. 477; Garvan v. $100,000 of Bonds, and Garvan v. $6,000 of Bonds, 265 Fed. 481. STOEHR v. WALLACE. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, FEB. 28, 1921. 255 U. S. 239, 65 Law. Ed. 604, 41 S. Ct. 293. This case held that the Trading with the Enemy Act was a war measure and that under section 5 the power vested in the President to determine enemy ownership may be delegated to the Alien Property Custodian; that this does not violate the fifth amendment of the Constitution since section 9 provides for due process of law for the return of property. Further, that the provisions of the Prussian Treaty granting rights to merchants of both countries in case of war was inapplicable. The suit arose on an injunction to prevent the sale of 14,900 shares of the capital stock of the Botany Worsted Mills, which were seized by the Alien Property Custodian as the property of a German corporation. The plaintiff, who was a citizen of the United States, sued as a stockholder of Stoehr & Sons, a New York corporation, on the ground that the directors of the corporation were agents of the Alien Property Custodian. The claim was made that the shares which were seized were in truth the property of the New York corporation. The court held that the New York corporation organized in February, 1917, had no actual interest in the shares; |