U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 1953

Karl Feller v. Herbert Brownell, Jr., Attorney General of United States, as Successor to Alien Property Custodian

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Decided February 19, 1953 · Goodrich, Staley, Hastie

201 F.2d 670 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Daniel S. Ring, Washington, D. C. (McDaniel Ring & Merrell, Washington, D. C., Thomas N. Griggs, Harvey F. Sloan and Griggs, Moreland, Blair & Douglass, Pittsburgh, Pa., Harry S. Barger, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellant., George B. Searls, Washington, D. C. (Rowland F. Kirks, Asst. Atty. Gen., Director, Office of Alien Property. Edward C.' Boyle, U. S. Atty. Western District of Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, Pa., James D. Hill, John F. Cushman and Victor R. Taylor, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

J. Robert Bonnar v. The United States (Court of Claims 1971)
Lorraine Sanden v. Mayo Clinic (8th Cir. 1974)
Manufacturers Trust Company v. Kennedy (2d Cir. 1961)
Manufacturers Trust Co. v. Kennedy (2d Cir. 1961)
Domenick Falconi v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (3d Cir. 1958)
La Due & Co. v. William P. Rogers, Attorney General, as Successor to the Alien Property Custodian (7th Cir. 1958)
Bank of Philippine Islands v. Rogers (District Court, District of Columbia 1958)
FAR Liquidating Corporation v. Brownell (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 1955)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The questions in this case which come to us on appeal are questions of fact solely concerning the ownership of stock in an American corporation which is claimed by the successor to the alien property custodian to be German owned at the date of seizure. The questions of fact involve the examination of a very considerable amount of evidence. The district judge considered each of these questions and came to' the conclusion that alien ownership was established satisfactorily. He wrote a careful opinion in which his reasons for the conclusions were explained. D.C., 106 F.Supp. 147. We agree with him and for the reasons he stated.

The judgment of. the district court will be affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.