U.S. Supreme Court, (October 17, 1935)
Docket number: 13
Permanent Link:
http://vlex.com/vid/20017834
Id. vLex: VLEX-20017834
Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)
U.S. Supreme Court BECKER STEEL CO. OF AMERICA v. CUMMINGS, 296 U.S. 74 (1935)
[Page 296 U.S. 74, 84] Suit cannot be maintained under the Tucker Act as amended. [Footnote 2] the six- year limitation on suits against the government is not merely a defense to be pleaded or waived but is jurisdictional. [Footnote 3] The sale of the property by the Custodian and the recovery of the first judgment for the proceeds of the sale both occurred more than six years prior to the institution of this action. Moreover, the express provision of section 7 of the Trading with the Enemy Act (50 USCA Appendix 7), that the sole relief and remedy of any person having a claim under the act shall be that afforded by the act, precludes a suit for the property or the proceeds of it under the Tucker Act. [Footnote 4] The complaint asserts that the judgment recovered for the entire proceeds of the sale of plaintiff's stock has been formally released and satisfied. The satisfaction is said to have been obtained by duress. If the present proceeding be viewed as an action on the judgment the satisfaction is a bar to its maintenance; if treated as an appeal to the equity powers of the Court to set aside the release and satisfaction the Tucker Act is not a consent to the prosecution of such an action in the District Court. [Footnote 5] I think it idle to remand the case to the District Court merely because of an erroneous reason assigned in support of the order of dismissal, since the suit will again have to be dismissed for the lack of jurisdiction. I should, therefore, affirm the order of the District Court. Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND concurs in this opinion. Footnotes Footnote 1 Relevant portions of the Trading with the Enemy Act are:'s 7 ... (c) ... The sole relief and remedy of any person having any claim to any money or other property heretofore or hereafter conveyed, transferred, assigned, delivered, or paid over to the Alien Property Custodian, or required so to be, or seized by him shall be that provided by the terms of this Act, and in the event of sale or other disposition of such property by the Alien Property Custodian, shall be limited to and enforced against the net proceeds received therefrom and held by the Alien Property Custodian or by the Treasurer of the United States.' As amended by Act Nov. 4, 1918, 1, 40 Stat. 1020 (50 USCA Appendix 7(c).'s 9(a). That any person not an enemy or ally of enemy claiming any interest, right, or title in any money or other property which may have been conveyed, transferred, assigned, delivered, or paid to the Alien Property Custodian or seized by him hereunder and held by him or by the Treasurer of the United States, or to whom any debt may be owing from an enemy or ally of enemy whose property or any part thereof shall have been conveyed, transferred, assigned, delivered, or paid to the Alien Property Custodian or seized by him hereunder and held by him or by the Treasurer of the United States may file with the said custodian a notice of his claim under oath and in such form and containing such particulars as the said custodian shall require; and the President, if application is made therefor by the claimant, may order the payment, conveyance, transfer, assignment, or delivery to said claimant of the money or other property so held by the Alien Property Custodian or by the Treasurer of the United States, or of the interest therein to which the President shall determine said claimant is entitled: Provided, That no such order by the President shall bar any person from the prosecution of any suit at law or in equity against the claimant to establish any right, title, or interest which he may have in such money or other property. If the President shall not so order within sixty days after the filing of such application or if the claimant shall have filed the notice as above required and shall have made no application to the President, said claimant may institute a suit in equity in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia or in the district court of the United States for the district in which such claimant resides, or, if a corporation, where it has its principal place of business (to which suit the Alien Property Custodian or the Treasurer of the United States, as the case may be, shall be made a party defendant), to establish the interest, right, title, or debt so claimed, and if so established the court shall order the payment, conveyance, transfer, assignment, or delivery to said claimant of the money or other property so held by the Alien Property Custodian or by the Treasurer of the United States or the interest therein to which the court shall determine said claimant is entitled. If suit shall be so instituted, then such money or property shall be retained in the custody of the Alien Property Custodian, or in the Treasury of the United States, as provided in this Act, and until any final judgment or decree which shall be entered in favor of the claimant shall be fully satisfied by payment or conveyance, transfer, assignment, or delivery by the defendant, or by the Alien Property Custodian, or Treasurer of the United States on order of the court, or until final judgment or decree shall be entered against the claimant or suit otherwise terminated.' 50 USCA Appendix 9(a). [Footnote 1] Banco Mexicano de Commercio e Industria v. Deutsche Bank, 263 U.S. 591, 602, 44 S.Ct. 209; Von Bruning v. Sutherland, 58 App.D. C. 258, 29 F.(2d) 631; Henkels v. Sutherland, 271 U.S. 298, 301, 46 S.Ct. 524, 51 A.L.R. 229. Footnote 2 U.S. Code, tit. 28, 41(20), 28 USCA 41(20). Footnote 3 Ford v. United States, , 6 S.Ct. 360; Finn v. United States, 123 U.S. 227, 8 S.Ct. 82; United States v. Wardwell, 172 U.S. 48, 19 S.Ct. 86; Compagnie Generale Transatlantique v. United States (C.C.A.) 51 F.(2d) 1053, 1056. Footnote 4 Compare Johnson v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp., 280 U.S. 320, 50 S.Ct. 118; Mara v. United States (D. C.) 54 F.(2d) 397. Footnote 5 United States v. Jones, 131 U.S. 1, 9 S.Ct. 669; compare Holmes v. United States (D.C.) 78 F. 513; New England Furniture & Carpet Co. v. United States (D.C.) 2 F.Supp. 650.