*85266 13.

Evidence of ownership of property

Under Ex. Order No. 8389, as amended by Order No. 8565

following this section, prohibiting persons within the United States
from transferring or dealing in evidences of ownership of "property" in
which foreign country designated in order had any interest, quoted
phrase included stock. Heyden Chemical Corp. v. Clark,
S.D.N.Y.1948, 85 F.Supp. 949.

14. Freezing of funds--Generally

Ex.Ord. No. 8785, following this section, immobilized assets

covered by its terms so that title to them might not shift from person to
person except by license until government could determine whether
those assets were needed for prosecution of threatened war or to
compensate our citizens or ourselves for damages done by
governments of the nationals affected. Propper v. Clark,
U.S.N.Y.1949, 69 S.Ct. 1333, 337 U.S. 472, 93 L.Ed. 1480, rehearing
denied 70 S.Ct. 33, 338 U.S. 841, 94 L.Ed. 514, rehearing denied 72
S.Ct. 289, 342 U.S. 907, 96 L.Ed. 679.

Temporary receiver of New York assets of an Austrian society

did not have such title as to defeat a later freezing order of the
Executive prohibiting transfer of funds and a later seizure by Alien
Property Custodian. Clark v. Propper, C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1948, 169 F.2d
324, certiorari granted 69 S.Ct. 405, 335 U.S. 902, 93 L.Ed. 436,
affirmed 69 S.Ct. 1333, 337 U.S. 472, 93 L.Ed. 1480, rehearing denied
70 S.Ct. 33, 338 U.S. 841, 94 L.Ed. 514, rehearing denied 72 S.Ct.
289, 342 U.S. 907, 96 L.Ed. 679.

The purpose of Ex.Ord. No. 6560, following this section,

freezing certain foreign funds in United States was to prevent such
funds from falling into hands of aggressor Axis powers and was not
intended to do away with right of creditor of foreigner to attach such
frozen funds. Commission for Polish Relief v. Banca Nationala a
Rumaniei, N.Y.1942, 43 N.E.2d 345, 288 N.Y. 332.

15. ---- Attachment

 Treasury ruling pursuant to Ex.Ord. No. 8389, set out as a note
under this section, blocking debts owing to Japanese nationals, that
unlicensed transfer of property in blocked accounts is null and void,
and defining transfer to include attachment, deprived unlicensed
attachment by Japanese national's creditors of preferential position as
to debts owed by third party to Japanese national and vested under res
vesting orders of alien property custodian, and hence creditors had no
interest, right or title sufficient to maintain suit under the Trading With
the Enemy Act, 50 App. §§ 5(b), 9(a) and 34(f, i), after dismissal by
hearing examiner of claim against successor to alien property
custodian. Orvis v. McGrath, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1952, 198 F.2d 708,
certiorari granted 73 S.Ct. 283, 343 U.S. 902, 97 L.Ed. 697, affirmed
73 S.Ct. 596, 345 U.S. 183, 97 L.Ed. 938.

*85267 Issuance of attachment or levy on blocked

property was not barred by the Trading With the Enemy Act, 50 App.
§ 1 et seq., or by executive order, but transfer of such property under
such attachment could be made only upon license. McCloskey v.
Bache, N.Y.Sup.1949, 88 N.Y.S.2d 196.

Ex.Ord. No. 6560, set out following this section, freezing

Rumanian funds in United States did not prevent valid levy under writ
of attachment on Rumanian bank's deposits in New York banks, and
under levy, court acquired dominion over rights and interests of
Rumanian bank in deposits, which were an attachable res, where said
executive order merely provided a regulatory plan and operated
exclusively in personam on New York banks and had no other legal
effect. Commission for Polish Relief v. Banca Nationala A Rumaniei
(National Bank of Rumania), N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.1941, 30 N.Y.S.2d 690,
262 A.D. 543, appeal granted 32 N.Y.S.2d 138, 263 A.D. 825,
affirmed 43 N.E.2d 345, 288 N.Y. 332.

16. ---- Contingent obligations

Ex.Ord. No. 8389, as amended by Order No. 8565, set out

following this section, freezing foreign funds in United States did not
transmute liabilities of New York banks to Rumanian bank carrying
deposits in such New York banks into "contingent obligations" not
subject to attachment in action against Rumanian bank. Commission
for Polish Relief v. Banca Nationala a Rumaniei, N.Y.1942, 43 N.E.2d
345, 288 N.Y. 332.
 17. ---- Countries affected

Upon the invasion of Denmark and Norway, the President,

acting under § 1 et seq. of Title 50 App., took steps to "freeze" the
property in the United States of the nationals of the invaded countries
by Ex.Ord. No. 8389 of April 10, 1940, note following this section;
upon the subsequent invasion of the Netherlands and Belgium, the
Executive Order was extended to apply to nationals of these two
countries and from time to time has been made applicable to other
states as the area of German invasion or domination was extended.
Anderson v. N.V. Transandine Handelmaatschappij, N.Y.Sup.1941, 28
N.Y.S.2d 547, affirmed 31 N.Y.S.2d 194, 263 A.D. 705, appeal
granted 32 N.Y.S.2d 1014, 263 A.D. 858, affirmed 43 N.E.2d 502, 289
N.Y. 9.

18. ---- Judicial process

The prohibition of unlicensed transfer of property contained in

Ex.Ord. No. 8389, as amended by Ex.Ord. No. 8785, set out as note
under this section is universal and does not except transfers by judicial
process. Clark v. Propper, C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1948, 169 F.2d 324,
certiorari granted 69 S.Ct. 405, 335 U.S. 902, 93 L.Ed. 436, affirmed
69 S.Ct. 1333, 337 U.S. 472, 93 L.Ed. 1480, rehearing denied 70 S.Ct.
33, 338 U.S. 841, 94 L.Ed. 514, rehearing denied 72 S.Ct. 289, 342
U.S. 907, 96 L.Ed. 679.

*85268 19. ---- Miscellaneous cases

A French national's transfer, by book entries, of securities in

possession of New York agency of international bank, to bank's head
office in London, without United States Treasury license, was void
under Ex.Ord. No. 8389, as amended, set out as note following this
section, freezing foreign funds in United States, and receiver,
appointed for the French national in supplementary proceedings
brought by judgment creditor of French national, had title to and was
entitled to possession of such securities on obtaining the necessary
license. Patino v. Patino, N.Y.Sup.1945, 59 N.Y.S.2d 58, 186 Misc.
381.

Ex.Ord. No. 8389, as amended by Order No. 8565 following

this section, freezing foreign funds in the United States deprived
Rumanian bank of its power to transfer any interest in funds deposited
in New York banks to the account of the Rumanian bank except
through the medium of assignment subject to a releasing of the credit
by the Secretary of the Treasury. Commission for Polish Relief v.
Banca Nationala a Rumaniei, N.Y.1942, 43 N.E.2d 345, 288 N.Y. 332.

Where moneys of which husband, an American citizen, was

trustee for nonresident alien nationals was transferred by wife from
joint account to wife's personal account, such funds should be
deposited with register of court by wife, who was suing for divorce
and division of joint property, to be repaid to husband upon his
petition and due proof that such repayment would not contravene
orders promulgated under President's emergency powers as to freezing
property of alien nationals. Roubicek v. Roubicek, Ala.1945, 21 So.2d
244, 246 Ala. 442.

20. Gold coin or bullion--Generally

This section authorizing the president to prohibit hoarding of

gold bullion, and Ex.Ord. No. 6260, Aug. 28, 1933, set out as note
under § this section of this title, issued thereunder, contemplated that
"gold bullion" should include melted scrap gold. U.S. v. Levy,
C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1943, 137 F.2d 778.

There is nothing in the record to justify the conclusion that in

this section it was not intended to include in the term "gold bullion"
newly mined gold melted and cast into gold bars containing as much
as 83 percent pure gold. Alaska Juneau Gold Mining Co. v. U.S.,
Ct.Cl.1941, 94 Ct.Cl. 15.

*85269 21. ---- Method of acquisition

Plaintiff was in no better position than any other holder of gold

or gold bullion within the meaning of this section and the Treasury
regulations merely because its gold bullion was obtained as the result
of its mining operations rather than by purchase or by some other
mode of acquisition. Alaska Juneau Gold Mining Co. v. U.S.,
Ct.Cl.1941, 94 Ct.Cl. 15.

22. ---- Payment in

 Ex.Ord. No. 8389, set out in note under this section, regulating
transactions in foreign exchange and foreign owned property
interdicted solely payment and not the prosecution of an action, or the
assignment of a claim, for such property. Leeds v. Guaranty Trust Co.
of N.Y., N.Y.Sup.1946, 65 N.Y.S.2d 431, affirmed 72 N.Y.S.2d 409,
272 A.D. 909, appeal granted 74 N.Y.S.2d 404, 272 A.D. 1004,
affirmed 80 N.E.2d 538, 297 N.Y. 1019.

Notice of sale under trust deed that sale would be made for
cash, payable in United States gold coin, was not invalid on ground
that terms could not be met because possession of gold was illegal,
where congressional resolution authorized discharge of obligation to
pay gold coin by payment of any legal tender, since its effect was to
strike provision for payment in gold coin. Security-First Nat. Bank of
Los Angeles v. Cuesta, Cal.App. 2 Dist.1936, 59 P.2d 542, 15
Cal.App.2d 302.

Under state statute authorizing party in justice court to deposit,

in lieu of a required undertaking, an equal amount of money in United
States gold coin, deposit of lawful currency would be sufficient in
view of presidential executive orders, based on this section prohibiting
and making impossible the use of gold coin for such purpose. Stewart
v. Justice's Court of Lindsay Tp., Cal.App. 4 Dist.1935, 45 P.2d 424, 7
Cal.App.2d 61.

23. Instructions of Secretary

Advice by officials of the Department of Justice that

organization, which was a national of enemy country, should disband
and turn over its activities to a new committee did not constitute
"instructions" within Ex.Ord. No. 8389, set out as a note under this
section, which conditions transfers of enemy national's property upon
instructions from Secretary of the Treasury. Schumacher v. Brownell,
C.A.3 (Pa.) 1954, 210 F.2d 14.

*85270 24. Nationals

Plaintiffs who had had firm and continuing intent to leave

Hungary forever before date of order, but who were kept involuntarily
in Hungary, and who had lost their home and civil and voting rights,
were not domiciled in, or subjects, citizens or residents of Hungary,
within Ex.Ord. No. 8389 defining nationals, and thus were entitled to
sue for property vested under International Claims Settlement Act,
section 1631f(a) of Title 22. Roboz v. Kennedy, D.C.D.C.1963, 219
F.Supp. 892.

Where corporations were found guilty of conspiracy to violate

section 611 et seq. of Title 22, corporations were "nationals" within
Ex.Ord. No. 8389, set out under this section, prohibiting certain
transactions with designated foreign countries or nationals thereof
unless authorized by license issued by Treasury Department, and
consequently the purchase without such license of tax sale certificates
issued in connection with delinquent real estate taxes assessed against
property of corporations could vest no rights in purchaser. Dix v.
Brownell, E.D.N.Y.1958, 159 F.Supp. 163, affirmed 269 F.2d 84.

General partnership, which was organized and existing under

the laws of France, and which maintained its office in Paris in portion
of France occupied by Germany at time when Germany was at war
with the United States, was properly determined by the alien property
custodian as a "National of a designated enemy country" within
meaning of Ex.Ords. No. 8389, § 5, and No. 9095 § 10. Stern v.
Newton, N.Y.Sup.1943, 39 N.Y.S.2d 593, 180 Misc. 241.

25. Property within United States

Proceeds of collection for account of, and due, customers of

collection agency's Hamburg office were property within United States
and subject to seizure under Trading With the Enemy Act, section 1 et
seq. of Title 50 Appendix, where collection agency was subject to
control of U.S. courts McGrath v. Agency of Chartered Bank of India,
Australia & China, S.D.N.Y.1952, 104 F.Supp. 964, affirmed 201 F.2d
368.

26. Transfer of credit

Ex.Ord. No. 8389, set out in note under this section prohibiting
all financial transactions between any banking institution in United
States and Japan, or any national thereof, unless licensed, prohibited
transfers of credit. Carr v. Yokohama Specie Bank, Limited, of San
Francisco, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1952, 200 F.2d 251.
 *85271 Where proceeds of a check belonged to one who
had deposited check for collection in a bank's Paris branch when
defendant bank received proceeds, an attempted transfer by defendant
of credit from proceeds to Paris bank was a "transfer of credit" within
Ex.Ord. No. 8446, prohibiting such transfers notwithstanding that
result of attempted transfer was merely to reduce Paris bank's
indebtedness to defendant, and hence proceeds in defendant's hands
were subject to attachment in proceedings against depositor. Philipp v.
Chase Nat. Bank of City of New York, N.Y.Sup.1942, 34 N.Y.S.2d
465.

27. Transfers subject to license

Executive Order No. 8389, set out as a note following this

section, blocking all transfers of evidence of debt or interests in
property of Japanese nationals, unless permitted by license from
Secretary of Treasury, in conjunction with Treasury ruling to effect
that such prohibition included creation of lien, prevented creditor of
Japanese national from thereafter acquiring, by unlicensed attachment
of funds in hands of third party to credit of Japanese national, an
interest, right or title in the funds which would support a claim against
the Alien Property Custodian, or his successor, for return of an interest
in vested property. Orvis v. Brownell, U.S.N.Y.1953, 73 S.Ct. 596,
345 U.S. 183, 97 L.Ed. 938.

Any right, to assets of German corporation, which accrued to

non-German as sole stockholder of corporation involved no such
"transfer" or "transaction" as was subject to license requirements of
socalled "Freezing order." Pernikoff v. Kennedy, D.C.D.C.1963, 219
F.Supp. 854.

A deed by Japanese national and resident of July 25, 1941, and

not recorded until July 26, 1941, at 10:30 a.m., to land in Hawaii,
conveyed no interest to grantee where attempted transfer was
unlicensed and belonged to such Japanese national and resident at the
time of the vesting by the Alien Property Custodian. Miyuki Okihara
v. Clark, D.C.Hawai'i 1947, 71 F.Supp. 319.

Even though claim by corporation against New York agency of

Japanese bank was entitled to recognition as a preferred claim against
assets of New York agency in hands of superintendent of banks,
corporation's assignee was not entitled either to principal of claim or to
accrual of interest thereon, where federal regulations required license
to be procured under Ex.Ord. No. 8389 as amended, set out as note
under this section, before payment could be made, and documents
relied upon by assignee to license payment failed to do so. Singer v.
Yokohama Specie Bank, Limited, N.Y.1949, 85 N.E.2d 894, 299 N.Y.
113, motion granted 87 N.E.2d 684, 299 N.Y. 791, motion denied 88
N.E.2d 324, 300 N.Y. 459, certiorari granted 70 S.Ct. 517, 339 U.S.
902, 94 L.Ed. 1331, certiorari granted 70 S.Ct. 517, 339 U.S. 902, 94
L.Ed. 1332, affirmed 70 S.Ct. 903, 339 U.S. 841, 94 L.Ed. 1323.