LYON, SUPERINTENDENT OF BANKS, v. SINGER.
NO. 512.
Argued April 18-19, 1950.
Decided June 5, 1950.
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.
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 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.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.