Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T08:20:57.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Litvinoff Assignment and the Belmont Case

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2017

Philip C. Jessup
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
Editorial Comment
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , July 1937 , pp. 481 - 484
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1937

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 This JOURNAL, Vol. 28 (1934), pp. 90 and 545; id., Supp., p. 10.

2 United States v. Morgan, Belmont and Eleanor R., Belmont as Executors of the Last Will and Testament of August Belmont, Deceased, No. 532, October Term, 1936 (57 Sup. Ct.—, 300 U. S.—), decided May 3, 1937; this JOURNAL, infra, p. 537 Google Scholar.

3 Text of notes in Petitioner’s Reply Brief, Appendix, p. 23 ft.

4 N. Y. Sess. Laws, 1936, c. 917, addingCivil Practice Act, Sec. 977-b.

5 There is an extensive literature on the New York cases which will not be discussed here, but attention may be called to the case of the Vladikavkazsky Railway Co. v. The New York Trust Co. (1934), 263 N. Y. 269, which contains some strong statements on a somewhat similar set of facts; this is one of the New York cases decided subsequent to recognition.

6 “Fifty Years of International Law,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. L, pp. 395, 431 (1937).

7 The subject is thoroughly treated in a manuscript about to be published by Willard Bunce Cowles: The Interference with Property in Consequence of Treaty without Just Compensation and without Due Process of Law.

8 United States v.Bank of New York and Trust Co., 77 P. (2d) 866; affirmed, 296 U. S. 463. See this JOURNAL, Vol. 28 (1934), p. 545.

9 The Muir case (1920), 254 U. S. 520; the Pesaro (1921), 255 U. S. 216; the Gul Djemal (1924), 264 U. S. 90; and, finally, Berizzi Brothers Co. v. S. S. Pesaro (1926), 271 U. S. 562.