Legal Opinion
In re Sutherland
District Court, W.D. New York
Decided February 15, 1927PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HAZEL, District Judge.
This is a motion instituted by the Alien Property Custodian against the Eastman Kodak Company under „ section 17 of the Trading with the Enemy Act (Comp. St. § 3115%i), to strike out irrelevant allegations and denials in the answer and return, and for a decree. ,
It is shown herein that' on April 1, 1918, the then Alien Property Custodian, A. Mitchell Palmer, determined, after investigation, that the Vereinigte Éabriken Photographischer Papiere, a corporation of Dresden, Germany, is an enemy alien within the purview of the Trading vrith the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- The ConquerorSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Van Allen v. AssessorsSupreme Court of the United States · 1866
- Central Union Trust Co. of NY v. GarvanSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Stoehr v. WallaceSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Commercial Trust Co. of NJ v. MillerSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Thoms v. SutherlandCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1931
- Jones v. National Railroad Passenger CorporationDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2025