Guessefeldt v. Brownell, Jr., Atty. Gen. Of United States

D.C. Circuit

Guessefeldt v. Brownell, Jr., Atty. Gen. Of United States

213 F.2d 24, 94 U.S. App. D.C. 155, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 3479

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMay 13, 1954

Docket11927

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 213 F.2d 24 (Guessefeldt v. Brownell, Jr., Atty. Gen. Of United States) 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

Guessefeldt v. Brownell, Jr., Atty. Gen. Of United States, 213 F.2d 24, 94 U.S. App. D.C. 155, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 3479 (D.C. Cir. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an alien property litigation under Section 9(a) of the Trading with the Enemy Act, 40 Stat. 411, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 1 et seq. The adequacy of the complaint was ultimately sustained by the Supreme Court, as against a motion to dismiss made before trial. Guessefeldt v. McGrath, 1952, 342 U.S. 308, 72 S.Ct. 338, 96 L.Ed. 342, reversing 1951, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 383, 191 F.2d 639. On remand the District Court concluded from the evidence adduced by both parties that Richard Guessefeldt was a resident of Germany within the meaning of Section 2 of the Trading with the Enemy Act, during the period in which the United States was at war with Germany, and was therefore an enemy within the meaning of the same section. Appellant contends that the finding of residence in Germany was clearly erroneous. We cannot agree. Our review of the record, in the light of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Guessefeldt v. McGrath, supra, satisfies us that there was ample evidence in support of the finding, y/e have examined the other contentions of the appellant, and find no reversible error. The judgment of the District Court dismissing the complaint will accordingly be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an alien property litigation under Section 9(a) of the Trading with the Enemy Act, 40 Stat. 411, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 1 et seq. The adequacy of the complaint was ultimately sustained by the Supreme Court, as against a motion to dismiss made before trial. Guessefeldt v. McGrath, 1952, 342 U.S. 308, 72 S.Ct. 338, 96 L.Ed. 342, reversing 1951, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 383, 191 F.2d 639. On remand the District Court concluded from the evidence adduced by both parties that Richard Guessefeldt was a resident of Germany within the meaning of Section 2 of the Trading with the Enemy Act, during the period in which the United States was at war with Germany, and was therefore an enemy within the meaning of the same section. Appellant contends that the finding of residence in Germany was clearly erroneous. We cannot agree. Our review of the record, in the light of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Guessefeldt v. McGrath, supra, satisfies us that there was ample evidence in support of the finding, y/e have examined the other contentions of the appellant, and find no reversible error. The judgment of the District Court dismissing the complaint will accordingly be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 F.2d 24, 94 U.S. App. D.C. 155, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 3479, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guessefeldt-v-brownell-jr-atty-gen-of-united-states-cadc-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack