Page images
PDF
EPUB

130

Findings of Fact ever, That the losses sustained by the particular organization were the result (1) of the evacuation and exclusion of its stockholders or members, or (2) of the evacuation and exclusion of persons of Japanese ancestry upon whom the organization depended for its business or support. Such claims shall not be barred by awards or disallowances heretofore made.

(3) "Claim by a person of Japanese ancestry” shall also include claims which have been timely filed for such damage or loss as heretofore defined incurred by persons of Japanese ancestry detained, interned, or paroled, and subsequently released, pursuant to Revised Statutes, sections 4067–70, as amended (relating to alien enemies) [sections 21–24 of Title 50). Such claims shall also include losses due to the exclusion of the families and relatives of such persons during their detention or internment. Any such person shalĩ be deemed to have been excluded from such military areas and territories as of the date he would have been evacuated had he not been detained or interned. The claim of or on behalf of such person shall not be barred by any award or disallowance heretofore made.

[ocr errors]

§ 1982.

(a) The Attorney General shall receive claims for a period of eighteen months from the date of the original enactment of this Act [July 2, 1948). All claims not presented within that time shall be forever barred : Provided, however, That any claim received by the Attorney General bearing a postmark prior to midnight, January 3, 1950, shall be considered to be timely filed within the said eighteen months. Any claim, timely filed, may be amended at any time prior to its final determination in order to include then compensable items of claim which, by the provisions of this Act [sections 19811987 of this Appendix) as they existed when the claim was filed, the Attorney General was not authorized to determine or consider.

(b) The Attorney General shall not consider any claim

(1) by or on behalf of any person who after December 7, 1941, was voluntarily or involuntarily deported from the United States to Japan or by and on behalf of any alien who on December 7, 1941, was not actually residing in the United States;

(2) except as provided in section 1(b)(3) [section 1981 (b) (3) of this Appendix),

for damage or loss arising out of action taken by any Federal agency pursuant

670-59563—11

154 Ct. Cl. Findings of Fact to sections 4067, 4068, 4069, and 4070 (relating to alien enemies) of the Revised Statutes, as amended sections 21-24 of Title 50), or pursuant to the Trading With the Enemy Act, as amended * *

(3) for damage or loss to any property, or interest therein, vested in the United States pursuant to said Trading With the Enemy Act, as amended * * *

(4) for damage or loss on account of death or personal injury, personal inconvenience, physical hardship, or mental suffering; and

(5) for loss of anticipated profits or loss of anticipated earnings.

§ 1984. * * *

(a) The Attorney General is authorized to compromise and settle and make an award in an amount not to exceed $100,000 on any claim timely filed under this Act, as amended [sections 1981-1987 of this Appendix), on the basis of affidavits, available Government records, and other information satisfactory to him.

(b) The Court of Claims shall have jurisdiction to determine any claim timely filed under this Act (sections 1981-1987 of this Appendix]. A petition for the determination of a claim by the Court of Claims shall be filed with the clerk of the said court and a copy of the petition shall be served upon the Attorney General by registered mail. Such a petition may be filed at any time after enactment of this subsection except that it must be filed within ninety days after the date of a notice by the Attorney General served on the claimant by registered mail that no further consideration will be given to the compromise of the claim. Upon the timely filing and serving of such petition, the Court of Claims shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine said claim in the same manner and under the same rules as any other cause properly before it and applying rules of equity and justice. Upon being served with a copy of such petition, the Attorney General shall forthwith certify and transmit to the clerk of the Court of Claims the original statement of the claim and any requested amendments thereto for filing with the said clerk as a preliminary record in the case. Such petition shall, to the fullest practicable extent, be treated for docketing, hearing, and determination as if the petition had been filed with the Court of Claims on the date the original claim was received by the Attorney General:

130

Findings of Fact

§ 1985. * * *

The Attorney General, in rendering an award in favor of any claimant, may as a part of the award determine and allow reasonable attorneys' fees, which shall not exceed 10 per centum of the amount allowed, to be paid

out of, but not in addition to, the amount of such award. 4. (a) Pursuant to the provisions of the Act set out in the preceding finding, plaintiff filed claim No. 146–35-2423 1-A, dated December 27, 1949, with the Attorney General, wherein she sought to recover approximately $50,075, representing damage to or loss of real and personal property which she allegedly suffered because of her evacuation and exclusion. Thereafter, she filed her petition in this court on February 20, 1958, claiming that her damage or loss amounted to $168,386.50. In her requested findings plaintiff reduces her claim to a total of $83,888.78. Two items of her claim consist of a 320-acre farm near Imperial, California, and a 160acre farm at Niland, California, both of which properties lie in the Imperial Valley. In addition, the plaintiff seeks in her petition to recover the loss from forced sale or theft of certain farm equipment, automotive equipment, household furniture and rice seed, as well as crop losses (flax and barley) and loss from preparation of land for planting of rice and cantaloupes and for removal of rice levees, and loss occasioned by payment of extra attorney fees to one Ross T. Hickcox.

(b) Plaintiff's claimed losses were not of property vested in the United States pursuant to the Trading with the Enemy Act, nor did they arise from death, personal injury, personal inconvenience, physical hardship or mental suffering, and the plaintiff has received nothing from insurance to compensate her for her loss.

a

REALTY

The Imperial Property

5. On July 10, 1911, a patent was issued by the United States of America to George H. Reed covering land described as follows:

1 In her requested findings 149 and 150, and by way of offer of proof at trial, the plaintiff asked for leave to amend her petition and to prove in reopened proceedings that she expended $3,269.58 in litigating the instant case. Even If proven, such an item of damage is so clearly unrecoverable that it is omitted from this report except as to this reference.

154 Ct. Cl. Findings of Fact Tract Forty-Four in Township Fourteen South of Range Fourteen East of the San Bernardino Meridian, California, containing Three Hundred Twenty Acres, according to the Official Plat of the Survey of said Land approved December 22, 1908; being the land described as the South Half of Section Twenty-Five in Township Fourteen South of Range Fourteen East of the San Bernardino Meridian, California, containing Three Hun

dred Twenty Acres. Note that tract 44, which was the property transferred in the above patent and which property is referred to in this litigation as the Imperial property, was known prior to 1908 as the south half of section 25 under the Plat of Survey of 1856. This fact is basic to an understanding of a series of errors which persisted until 1942. By grant deed dated March 13, 1911, the above-described land was conveyed by George H. Reed to John C. Ralphs, Sr., and the deed was recorded on April 1, 1911.

6. (a) Subsequent to April 1, 1911, Tom, who had entered the United States first in 1903 and had come to the perial Valley to live in 1905, farmed the land described in finding 5 under a rental arrangement with John C. Ralphs, Sr.

a Prior to July 1923 Tom and John C. Ralphs, Sr. discussed the possibility of the purchase by Tom of the land, which will hereinafter be referred to alternatively as tract 44 or the Imperial property or farm. However, the Alien Land Law of California in effect at that time precluded Tom from acquiring the land in his own name. Legal advisers suggested a circumvention of the law by conveyance of the property by John C. Ralphs, Sr. to his son, Charles B. Ralphs, who would execute a deed of trust to the property to his father to secure the transaction. Tom would then petition the California courts for leave to purchase the land in question for and on behalf of his minor daughter, Mary, the present plaintiff, who would assume the trust lien. Thereafter the property could be conveyed by Charles B. Ralphs to Mary through Tom as her guardian.3

? How Reed could deed the property to Ralphs before receiving a land patent is not explained, but is immaterial.

3 Why the plan involved an intermediate transfer to C. B. Ralphs is not clear, unless it was that the Alien Land Law may have made it easier for Tom, as guardian for Mary, to assume an existing encumbrance rather than to execute a new undertaking and deed of trust.

a

130

Findings of Fact (b) At this time (1923) John C. Ralphs, Sr. owned an additional 320 acres adjoining tract 44 on the south, and this was being farmed by his son, Charles B. Ralphs. John C. Ralphs, Sr. and another son, John C. Ralphs, Jr., lived in San Bernardino, California, during the times material herein, while Charles B. Ralphs lived on and operated the 320 acres in the Imperial Valley lying south of and adjacent to tract 44.

7. On July 25, 1923, Tom filed a petition with the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Imperial, as Mary's guardian, for leave to purchase real property for Mary. The petition recited that the land was to be purchased from C. B. Ralphs for a total consideration of $48,000, payable in installments on or before certain dates set out therein. The copy of the petition in the record neglects to recite a description of the property, but other allegations in the petition conclusively indicate that the property consisted of 320 acres. Tom was represented in this proceeding by Attorney Randall. On August 15, 1923, an order was signed by the court granting leave to purchase the property described as:

South One-half (S12) of Tract Forty-four (44), Township Fourteen (14) South, Range Fourteen (14) East, S.B.B.M., Imperial County, California, containing 320

acres, more or less * * Note the reference in the foregoing description to the south half of tract 44. This description represented the first of a series of errors, and is chargeable to Attorney Randall, since there were 320 acres in the whole of tract 44 but only 160 acres in the south half thereof. There were, of course, 320 acres in the south half of section 25, which had been the designation of tract 44 prior to the 1908 survey. The court's order recited that the petitioner was to pay $6,400 upon the execution of the deed, and that the property was subject to a trust deed as a security for a promissory note in the sum of $41,600, payable in stipulated installments.

8. Attorney Hellyer represented the Ralphs in connection with the sale of the property to Mary. He prepared a deed from John C. Ralphs, Sr., and wife to Charles B. Ralphs, and a deed of trust from Charles B. Ralphs to a trustee with

« PreviousContinue »