Cummings v. Jensen

D.C. Circuit

Cummings v. Jensen

85 F.2d 290, 66 App. D.C. 124, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 4094

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 8, 1936

DocketNo. 6644

StatusPublished

This text of 85 F.2d 290 (Cummings v. Jensen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cummings v. Jensen, 85 F.2d 290, 66 App. D.C. 124, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 4094 (D.C. Cir. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

GRONER, Associate Justice.

This appeal was consolidated and heard with No. 6643 (Cummings et al. v. Societe Suisse, 66 App.D.C. 121, 85 F.(2d) 287), decided today, and it is agreed there is no material difference in the questions involved. Tn each case the suit was to recover a balance of a fund sequestered by the Alien Property Custodian. In each the Custodian in his own name, but for the benefit of the United States, filed a counterclaim asking restitution and alleging fraud in the procurement of the original payment, and in each the court below rejected the counterclaim.

In No. 6643 we held that the action of the court in this respect was error; and, for reasons set out in the opinion there, we reach the same conclusion here, and an order will be entered reversing and remanding.

Reversed and remanded.

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

GRONER, Associate Justice.

This appeal was consolidated and heard with No. 6643 (Cummings et al. v. Societe Suisse, 66 App.D.C. 121, 85 F.(2d) 287), decided today, and it is agreed there is no material difference in the questions involved. Tn each case the suit was to recover a balance of a fund sequestered by the Alien Property Custodian. In each the Custodian in his own name, but for the benefit of the United States, filed a counterclaim asking restitution and alleging fraud in the procurement of the original payment, and in each the court below rejected the counterclaim.

In No. 6643 we held that the action of the court in this respect was error; and, for reasons set out in the opinion there, we reach the same conclusion here, and an order will be entered reversing and remanding.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 F.2d 290, 66 App. D.C. 124, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 4094, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cummings-v-jensen-cadc-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack