Supreme Court of the United States, 1950

Lyon v. Singer

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided June 5, 1950 · Nos, Director, Property, Therefore

339 U.S. 841; 70 S. Ct. 903; 94 L. Ed. 2d 1323; 1950 U.S. LEXIS 1817; 94 L. Ed. 1323 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Edward Feldman argued the cause for Lyon, Superintendent of Banks. With him on the briefs was Daniel Gersen., Albert R. Connelly argued the cause for Singer. With him on the brief was George S. Collins., Allen T. Klots argued the cause for Banque Mellie Iran. With him on the brief were Peter H. Kaminer and Merrill E. Clark, Jr., By special leave of Court, James L. Morrisson argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting petitioner in Nos. 512 and 513, urging reversal or modification of the judgment in No. 512, and affirmance in No. 527. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Perlman and Harold I. Baynton.

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision.

Brownell v. Singer (Supreme Court of the United States 1954)
State of the Netherlands v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (2d Cir. 1953)
Carr v. Yokohama Specie Bank, Limited, of San Francisco (9th Cir. 1952)
Zittman v. McGrath (Supreme Court of the United States 1951)
Orvis v. Brownell (Supreme Court of the United States 1953)
Mario Alfonso Tagle and Lourdes A. Martinez v. Donald T. Regan, as Secretary of Treasury of the United States, Defendant (5th Cir. 1981)
George C. Dix v. William Rogers, Attorney General of the United States, as Successor to the Alien Property Custodian (2d Cir. 1959)
Brownell v. Union & New Haven Trust Co. (Conn. 1956)
Albert v. McGrath (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 1952)
State of the Netherlands v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (District Court, S.D. New York 1951)
In re the Liquidation of Yokohama Specie Bank (New York Supreme Court 1951)
Tagawa v. Karimoto (Haw. 1958)
Brown v. Hugo Stinnes Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1953)
In re the Accounting of Mulligan (New York Surrogate's Court 1952)

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.

Certiorari was granted in these cases to review federal issues respecting the administration of frozen alien property. 339 U. S. 902.

The cases arose from suits brought by claimants Singer and Banque Mellie Iran to collect from a statutory bank liquidator claims allegedly entitled to a preference under New York Banking Law § 606, arising from transactions with a Japanese corporation, blocked under Executive Orders Nos. 8389, 5 Fed. Reg. 1400; 8832, 6 Fed. Reg. 3715. The New York Court of Appeals held that the transactions gave rise to a preferred claim in the liquidation but that payment by the liquidator must await specific licensing by the Alien Property Custodian of the transactions underlying the claims. Singer v. Yokohama Specie Bank, Ltd., 293 N. Y. 542, 58 N. E. 2d 726, 299 N. Y. 113, 85 N. E. 2d 894; Banque Mellie Iran v. Yokohama Specie Bank, Ltd., 299 N. Y. 139, 85 N. E. 2d 906.

Those opposed to the judgments urge that, as a matter of federal law, the freezing order prevented the creation of any claim recognizable under § 606 of the New York Banking Law.

Oral argument and study of the record have convinced us that the judgments of the New York Court of Appeals are not inconsistent with the First War Powers Act of 1941, § 301, 55 Stat. 839, or the above Executive Orders. We accept the New York court’s determination that under New York law these claims arose from transactions in New York and were entitled to a preference. Since the New York court conditioned enforcement of the claims upon licensing by the Alien Property Custodian, federal control over alien property remains undiminished. Our *843 decision in Propper v. Clark, 337 U. S. 472, does not require a contrary conclusion. There the liquidator claimed title to frozen assets adversely to the Custodian, and sought to deny the Custodian’s paramount power to vest the alien property in the United States. No such result follows from the New York court’s judgments in the present cases.

Since we further agree that, at the time the New York judgments were entered, no licenses had been issued to these claimants, we affirm the judgments below.

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice Frankfurter is of the opinion that since the federal question in Nos. 513 and 528 has been eliminated by the license granted by the Director, Office of Alien Property, no jurisdiction to review remains in this Court. Therefore, the writs of certiorari in these two cases should be dismissed.

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