Legal Opinion
Klein v. Palmer
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided April 4, 1927No. Nos. 159, 160PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMack, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). On the oral argument, the attempt to sustain the claim to equitable relief was practically abandoned. Clearly, title to the seized property was vested in the United States under the Trading with the Enemy Act (Comp. St. §§ 3115%a-3115%j). Amy suit to redress the alleged wrongful disposition of the seized property must be -brought by the United States; any claim to the property so seized or its proceeds must be made in accordance with the provisions of that act.
Moreover, the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, art. 297 (d), (i), and annex 1, copied in…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Miller v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Munich Reinsurance Co. v. First Reinsurance Co. of HartfordCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1925
3Cited by6 opinions
- Guessefeldt v. McGrathSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
- United States v. Allied Stevedoring Corp., John Ward, John Potter and Michael BowersCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1957
- United States v. Mayor and Council of City of Hoboken, NJDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1928
- General Electric Co. v. RobertsonDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1928
- Guessefeldt v. McGrathSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.