Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T07:01:16.164Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

American Creditors and Enemy Property in Allied Countries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2017

Kurt H. Nadelmann
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Current Notes
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , July 1952 , pp. 526 - 532
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1952

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 [1951] Statutory Instruments, No. 1899, based on the Distribution of German Enemy Property Act, 1949; E. J. Cohn, “German Enemy Property,” 3 International Law Quarterly (1950) 391.

2 The Distribution of German Property (No. 2) Consolidated Amendment Order, 1952, [1952] Statutory Instruments, No. 633.

3 See British Nationality Act of 1948, § 32 (1); British Protectorate, Protected States and Protected Persons Order in Council, 1949, [1949] Statutory Instruments, No. 140; Clive Parry, British Nationality (London, 1951), p. 94.

4 Sec. 3 (a) of the Order.

5 Moniteur Belge, Sept. 2, 1951, [1951] Pasinomie 790; W. Bourgaux, “La loi du 14 juillet 1951 relative an séquestre et à la liquidation des biens allemands,” 67 Journal des Tribunaux (1952) 117.

6 Sec. 26 (4) of the law.

7 Loi No. 47–520 relative à diverses dispositions d’ordre financier, Journal Officiel, March 25, 1947, [1947] Dalloz, Bulletin Législatif, p. 281.

8 Sec. 35.

9 Sec. 36.

10 6O Stat. 925 (1946), 50 U. S. 0. App. § 34 (a) (1951); Rules of Procedure for Claims, 12 Fed. Reg. 5565 (Aug. 19, 1947); M. S. Mason and S. Efron, “Payment of American Creditors from Vested Assets,” 9 Federal Bar Journal (1948) 233; Annual Report, Office of Alien Property, Department of Justice, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1950, p. 73.

11 Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 14 (1946), p. 114; this Journal, Supp., Vol. 40 (1946), p. 177; [1949] Inter-Allied Reparation Agency Report, Annex II, p. 4.

12 Part I, Art. 6 A of the Agreement.

13 [1949] Inter-Allied Reparation Agency Report, Annex VIII, p. 90; J. Simsarian, “Rules for Accounting for German Assets,” Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 18 (1948), p. 227.

14 Sec. 18, Part 7 of the Rules.

15 p. Timbal, “La confiscation dans le droit français des XIIIe et XIVe siècles,” 22 Revue Historique de Droit Français et Étranger (4th ser., 1943) 44; 23 ibid. (1944) 35, 57.

16 “bona non sunt nisi deducto aere alieno.” Cf. Digest 49. 14. 11, de jure fisci.

17 Ehrhard, Ferdinand, La Confiscation Generate en Droit Français Moderne (Paris, 1934), p. 89 Google Scholar; French Penal Code, Art. 39 (2), as amended by Decree-Law of July 29, 1939: “Property which passes to the State as a result of confiscation remains liable, up to its value, for legitimate debts dating from before the conviction.” Cf. Law of March 21, 1947, Journal Officiel, March 25, 1947, p. 2767, Arts. 19 to 28, [1947] Recueil Dalloz, Législation, p. 127; P. Voirin, “Comment les fonctions répressive et financière de la confiscation générale conditionnent les effets civils,” [1947] Recueil Dalloz, Chroniques, p. 89.

18 On early English law, see Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Vol. 4, p. 386; Joseph Chitty, Prerogatives of the Crown (1820), p. 213; W. S. Holdsworth, History of English Law, Vol. 10 (1938), p. 351. 7 Geo. 1, c. 27 (1720), is an instance where payment of debts out of confiscated property was provided for (property of directors of the South Sea Company), Holditch v. Mist, 1 P. Wms. 695, 24 Eng. Repr. 575 (1721). In this country, early State laws, under which persons loyal to the King forfeited their estates, allowed payment of debts out of the estates. Connecticut: Act of May, 1778, Beckman v. Tomlison, Kirby 291 (Conn. 1787); Georgia: Acts of March and May 4, 1781, Wright v. Nutt, 3 Bros. Ch. 326, 1 H. Bl. 136, 29 Eng. Repr. 562 (1791); Wright v. Simpson, 6 Ves. Jr. 714, 31 Eng. Repr. 1272 (1802); Massachusetts: Act of May 1, 1779, § 8; New Jersey: Acts of April 18, 1778, § 12 and Dec. 11, 1778, § 16, Kempe v. Antill, 2 Bro. Ch. 11, 29 Eng. Repr. 6 (1785); Folliot v. Ogden, 1 H. Bl. 123; 126 Eng. Repr. 75 (1789); Dunham v. Drake, 1 N. J. Law 315 (1795); New York: Act of Oct. 22, 1779, § 24, Act of May 12, 1784, §42; North Carolina: Act of 1779, §9; South Carolina: Act of Feb. 26, 1782, §17, Wragg v. Comptroller-General, 2 So. Car. Eq. 509 (1807).

19 Art. 297 (b) of the Treaty; Simonson, Paul F., Private Property and Rights in Enemy Countries (London, 1921), pp. 233 Google Scholar, 241.

20 Gidel, Gilbert and Barrault, H. E., Traité de Paix avec l’Allemagne du, 28 juin 1919 et les Intéréts Privés (Paris, 1927), p. 168 Google Scholar; de Solère, P., “Condition des Biens Ennemis,” Repertoire de Droit International (Lapradelle and Niboyet, eds.), Vol. 4 (1929), p. 509 Google Scholar, No. 196. Cf. Decree of April 17, 1919, § 6 (2), respecting enemy property in Alsace and Lorraine, Journal Officiel, May 8, 1919, [1919] Dalloz, Jurisprudence Générale, pp. 4, 45; Péier, Anatole, Séquestre des biens allemands en Alsace Lorraine (Paris, 1925), p. 158 Google Scholar.

21 Sec. 9, as amended, subdiv. (e), 41 Stat. 978 (1920), 50 U. S. C. App. §9 (e) (1951); Aronstam v. James, 273 Fed. 545, 549 (1921) (involving existence of reciprocity in France).

22 It has been suggested, however, that the barring of foreign creditors' claims and the resulting economic loss seems “ a non-proximate effect for which no special provision need be made.” Eli Maurer, “Protection of Non-Enemy Interests in Enemy External Assets,” 16 Law and Contemporary Problems (1951) 407, 421.

23 N. Y. Laws 1936, c. 917; N. Y. Civ. Practice Act, § 977-b.

24 172 U. S. 239 (1898).

25 N. Y. Laws 1938, c. 604; N. Y. Civ. Practice Act, § 977-b, subdiv. 16 (c), as amended, 2 Laws of New York 1744 (Thompson, 1939). Cf. Kurt H. Nadelmann, “Legal Treatment of Foreign and Domestic Creditors,” 11 Law and Contemporary Problems (1946) 696, 706.

26 315 U. S. 203 (1941); this Journal, Vol. 36 (1942), p. 309. For criticism of the decision, see Edwin Borchard, “Extraterritorial Confiscations,” ibid., p. 275; Philip C. Jessup, “The Litvinov Assignment and the Pink Case,” ibid., p. 282; Elliott E. Cheatham, “Observations au sujet de la dicision rendue par la Cour Suprème des États-Unis dans l’affaire United States v. Pink,” 67–72 Journal du Droit International (1945) 48; note, 51 Yale Law Journal (1942) 848.

27 Loc. cit., p. 228.

28 See, e.g., Appeal Paris, July 22, 1929, 56 Journal du Droit International (1929) 1095; Com. Trib. Paris, Jan. 21, 1935, 30 Revue Critique de Droit International (1935) 491; with note by J.-P. Niboyet at p. 499. In China, only the branch creditors were paid: Decree of Sept. 30, 1926, 56 Journal du Droit International (1929) 1114. In Poland, only claims of Polish nationals and claims which arose or accrued in Poland were admitted: Decree of March 22, 1928, § 13, 29 Revue Critique de Droit International (1934) 843.

29 Bankruptcy Act, § 65 (d), 30 Stat. 564 (1898), 11 U. S. C. § 105 (d) (Supp., 1951). We strongly object to discriminatory rules abroad against foreign creditors. See Kurt N. Nadelmann, “A Report on the Montevideo Conference and Creditor Discrimination,” 100 University of Pennsylvania Law Review (1952) 994.

30 In re Wiskemann, 92 L. J. Ch. 349 (1923). Cf. Ernst Rabel, “Situs Problems in Enemy Property Measures,” 11 Law and Contemporary Problems (1945) 118, 132.

31 Unanimous Resolution No. 3, Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 14 (1946), p. 122; [1949] Inter-Allied Reparation Agency Report, Annex II, p. 16.

32 Cf. Kurt H. Nadelmann, “Local Enemy Assets and the Paris Agreement on Reparation,” this Journal, Vol. 40 (1946), pp. 813, 816.

33 Ibid.

34 See note 21, supra.