Alpha Silk Co. v. United States

125 F. Supp. 941, 130 Ct. Cl. 43, 1954 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 26
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedNovember 30, 1954
DocketNo. 47755; No. 47756; No. 47757; No. 47758; No. 47759; No. 47760; No. 47761; No. 47762; No. 47763; No. 47764; No. 47765; No. 47766; No. 47767; No. 47768; No. 47769; No. 47770; No. 47771; No. 47772; No. 47782; No. 47783; No. 47784; No. 47785; No. 47786
StatusPublished

This text of 125 F. Supp. 941 (Alpha Silk Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Alpha Silk Co. v. United States, 125 F. Supp. 941, 130 Ct. Cl. 43, 1954 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 26 (cc 1954).

Opinion

Madden, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

These cases present the same questions which the court considered and answered in the cases of Edward P. Stahel & Co., Inc., et al. v. United States, 111 C. Cls. 682, certiorari denied 336 U. S. 951. We have reconsidered the questions and have come to the same conclusions. No purpose would be served by reciting again the historical facts recited in our former opinion, and again in our findings in the instant cases.

The plaintiffs in No. 47764 are not entitled to recover, since they have failed to prove ownership of the claim. The plaintiffs in No. 47765 are not entitled to recover. The petitions in Nos. 47764 and 47765 will be dismissed. The plaintiffs in the other cases are entitled to recover the amounts shown in the conclusion of law.

It is so ordered.

Laramore, Judge; Whitaker, Judge; Littleton, Judge; and Jones, Chief Judge, concur.

[47]*47FINDINGS OF FACT

The court, having considered the evidence, the report of Commissioner Bichard H. Akers, and the briefs and argument of counsel, makes findings of fact as follows:

1. (a) Alpha Silk Company, the plaintiff in No. 47755, is a corporation duly incorporated in the State of New York.

(b) Bear Brand Hosiery Co., the plaintiff in No. 47756, is a corporation duly incorporated in the State of Illinois.

(c) Cohn-Hall-Marx Co., the plaintiff in No. 47757, is a corporation duly incorporated in the State of New York.

(d) Davenport Hosiery Mills, Inc., the plaintiff in No. 47758, is a corporation duly incorporated in the State of Delaware.

(e) George Elbogen & Co., the plaintiff in No. 47759, is a corporation duly incorporated in the'State of New York.

(f) Morton Feldman, the plaintiff in No. 47760, is the assignee for the benefit of all the stockholders of Morton Feldman, Inc., a New Jersey corporation which was dissolved in June 1943.

(g) E. Gerli & Co., Inc., the plaintiff in No. 47761, was a New York corporation which was dissolved on October 13, 1942, in accordance with Section 105 of the New York Stock Corporation Law. The present claim has been distributéd to the stockholders in kind, and they have authorized the corporation and its liquidating trustees to liquidate it for them. Prior to its liquidation, the corporation had been an importer of and dealer in raw silk.

(h) Holeproof Hosiery Co., the plaintiff in No. 47762, is a corporation duly incorporated in the State of Wisconsin.

(i) Kahn & Feldman, Inc., the plaintiff in No. 47763, is a corporation duly incorporated in the State of New York. In 1941 it was engaged in purchasing and throwing raw silk.

(j) M. K. M. Hosiery Mills, Inc., and Tennessee Knitting Mills, Inc., the plaintiffs in No. 47764, are corporations duly incorporated in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The plaintiffs allege that they are successors in interest, following voluntary statutory dissolution, to Massachusetts Emit[48]*48ting Mills, a corporation incorporated in tbe State of Massachusetts, but there is insufficient evidence in the record to support such allegation.

(k) Max Oltarsh, Moe Oltarsh, Abraham Oltarsh, and Martin Oltarsh, the plaintiffs in No. 47765, are partners doing business as J. Oltarsh according to the laws of the State of New York.

(l) Dorgin Textile Corporation (formerly Pacific Industrial Corporation), the plaintiff in No. 47766, is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of New York, certificate of change of corporate name having been filed with the Secretary of State of New York on April 8, 1947. In 1941 it was a dealer in raw and thrown silk and a manufacturer of thrown silk.

(m) Phoenix Hosiery Company, the plaintiff in No. 47767, is a corporation duly incorporated in the State of Wisconsin.

(n) Rudolph-Desco Company, Inc., (formerly Charles Rudolph Corporation of New York), the plaintiff in No. 47768, is a corporation duly incorporated in the State of New York. On May 1,1948, its name was changed from Charles Rudolph Corporation of New York to Nick Rappold Corporation. On January 2,1951, its name was changed from Nick Rappold Corporation to New York Deseo Corporation. On November 1,1952, its name was changed from New York Deseo Corporation to Rudolph-Desco Company, Inc., its present name.

(o) Fritz de Schulthess and Monica de Schulthess, the plaintiffs in No. 47769, are copartners doing business in accordance with the laws of Switzerland under the name of de Schulthess & Company, formerly Charles Rudolph & Co., of Zurich, Switzerland.

(p) Sauquoit Silk Company, Inc., the plaintiff in No. 47770, is a corporation duly incorporated in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

(q) Siber Hegner & Company, Inc., the plaintiff in No. 47771, is a corporation duly incorporated in the State of New York.

(r) Standard Hosiery Mills, Inc., the plaintiff in No. 47772, is a corporation duly incorporated in the State of North Carolina.

[49]*49(s) Belding Heminway Company, the plaintiff in No. 47782, is a corporation duly incorporated in the State of Connecticut.

(t) Gudebrod Bros. Silk Co., Inc., the plaintiff in No. 47788, is a corporation duly incorporated in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

(u) Miller-Smith Hosiery Company, the plaintiff in No. 47784, is a corporation duly incorporated in the State of Tennessee.

(v) Lawrence Schiff and Sidney L. Schiff, the plaintiffs in No. 47785, are partners doing business as Lawrence Schiff Silk Mills according to the laws of the State of New York.

(w) John Hand & Sons, Inc., the plaintiff in No. 47786, is a corporation duly incorporated in the State of New Jersey.

2. Kaw silk is not, and never has been, produced in commercial quantities in the United States. All such silk has been imported. For the past fifteen or twenty years about 85 percent of the raw silk used in the United States has been produced in Japan, the balance coming principally from China and Italy, with small amounts originating in Brazil, Persia and other parts of the Near East.

3. When the thread, fiber, or strand of raw silk is unwound from the cocoon of the silkworm, it is first wound into skeins. Skeins in turn are combined or put into large bundles or books, and a number of such bundles are combined into a bale. A standard bale of raw silk weighs between 130 and 135 pounds. A bale is the normal raw silk unit of commerce. Each bale is given and thereafter bears a distinguishing number.

Bales of raw silk are tested by a process of sampling. “Denier” is a term used to denote the count or size of silk threads. “13An denier” originally meant that sample skeins each containing a fiber of silk 450 meters long taken from a given bale averaged in weight between 13 and 15 deniers, that is, between 65 and 75 centigrams. In recent years this meaning has been narrowed and the accepted trade meaning of the term t!l%5 denier” now is that the average weight of the samples is between 13% and 14% deniers.

[50]*50Testing raw silk for grade involves the determination of various characteristics such as evenness, elasticity, cleanliness, etc.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Walker v. United States
64 F. Supp. 135 (Court of Claims, 1946)
Edward P. Stahel & Co. v. United States
78 F. Supp. 800 (Court of Claims, 1948)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
125 F. Supp. 941, 130 Ct. Cl. 43, 1954 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alpha-silk-co-v-united-states-cc-1954.