U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1952

Berger v. Ruoff

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided May 12, 1952 · Edgerton, Clark, Fahy

195 F.2d 775 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Raoul Berger, pro se., Harold Ungar, Washington, D. C., Attorney, Department of Justice, of the Bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, with whom Harold I. Baynton, Asst. Atty. Gen., and George B. Searls, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee McGrath., John W. Pehle, Lawrence S. Lesser, and James H. Mann, all of Washington, D. C., entered appearances on behalf of appellee Ruoff.

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Societe Internationale v. Kennedy (District Court, District of Columbia 1964)
Margot Von Opel v. Uebersee Finanz Korporation, A. G. Liestal, Switzerland (D.C. Cir. 1955)
Uebersee Finanz-Korporation v. Brownell (District Court, District of Columbia 1953)

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.

In order to protect his alleged lien, in consequence of his legal services, on a former client’s claim against the government, the appellant asserts a right to intervene under Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 24(a), 28 U.S.C.A. in the former client’s suit under § 9(a) of the Trading with the Enemy Act, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 9(a), for the return of vested property. In effect the District Court denied, leave to intervene.

The alleged lien, if any, arose after the property vested. Section 9(f) of the Trading with the Enemy Act, 50 U.S.C.AAp-pendix, § 9(f), provides that, with irrelevant exceptions, “the money or other property conveyed, transferred, assigned, delivered, or paid to the Alien Property Custodian, shall not be liable to lien, attachment, garnishment, trustee process, or execution, or subject to any order or decree of any court.” We think the alleged lien invalid for this reason. Cf. La Mettrie v. James, 55 App.D.C. 354, 6 F.2d 479, aff’d, De La Mettrie v. James, 272 U.S. 731, 47 S.Ct. 264, 71 L.Ed. 496. We need not consider whether it is invalid for other reasons.

Affirmed.

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