*1 PROPPER, RECEIVER, CLARK, ATTORNEY
GENERAL, AS SUCCESSOR TO THE ALIEN CUSTODIAN, PROPERTY et al. Argued 28-29,
No. 390. March 1949. Decided June *2 argued M. Joseph Cohen A. Walter Socolow petitioner. for and filed a brief cause Attorney- Clark, for the cause argued Schwartz David were Solici- him on the brief With respondent. General, Bazelon, Perlman, Attorney General Assistant tor General Laujer. Joseph L. Morrisson James a brief and filed argued cause D. Frohlich Louis Society American President of the Taylor, as Deems Authors and Publishers. Composers, Court. opinion of the Reed delivered the Mr. Justice 1 April 22,1946, began Custodian on Property The Alien Enemy with the under action the Southern District Court for States Act in the United *3 and a dec- payment, York to obtain the New District of as re- petitioner him the against title in as laration of Society by American royalties owed ceiver, of certain (ASCAP) Authors and Publishers Composers, of Autoren, Kom- Genehmigte Gesellschaft der Staatlich an associa- (AKM), Austrian ponisten Musikverleger und No. Order provisions Vesting of tion, pursuant September 4, 1943, Property Custodian, Alien Office of in had vested 16463,' whereby the Custodian Reg. Fed. specifically AKM, of property to certain himself title performance for the royalties copyrights for under claims had been compositions. ASCAP By contract of musical royalty the use AKM on to license authorized AKM. belonging to country copyrights of. musical this state-appointed petitioner, who and the ASCAP defendants. involved, were made royalties receiver of the summary judgment for Court, on motion The District declaring pleadings, judgment entered a on the judgment General, duly as Suc Clark, Attorney substituted Tom C. Property Custodian. cessor to the Alien right, had title or interest no Taylor, Supp. 202, Markham F. question,
claim judgment pay ASCAP to directing a second later, n of Ap- Custodian. The United States Court debt appeal by Circuit, petitioner,2 Second peals for the 2d Propper, F. affirmed. Clark controversy are underlying facts pertinent as. on an parte application On ex follows: June AKM, Supreme of Court the New York creditor of that associa appointed petitioner temporary receiver 977-b the New York Civil Practice tion, pursuant of § of liquidation the local assets Act, provides which corporation it to do when has ceased business foreign here important. or another not Proceed for one reason this Act to enable claimants ings under payment claims foreign to secure their corporation of the available assets. The equitable apportionment ;-to take, him receive and directed order of tangible . and all . . possession any his assets reduce to York, of the State New the- within intangible, [AKM], and hold the until the further defendant same On pursuant June order this Court.” 1917, 40 Act of (b) with the Enemy amended,3 promul President Stat. 8785,4 “freezing No. a so-called Executive Order gated prohibited involving transactions order,” which certain- licensed except they specifically Austrian were peti Secretary Treasury. July 29,1941, by the On *4 receiver, an action in the courts New tioner, began 2 having entry judgment against it, ASCAP, stipulated of a It appeal. party. here to made a was did not filed a motion be grant argue motion.' permitted and there is now-no occasion It is denied. 3By 7,1940, May 54 Stat. 179. the Joint Resolution 4 Reg.-2897. 6 Fed.
476 agamst royalties
York ASCAP to recover the which it owed Its disposition awaiting AKM.5 the outcome of September 29, On 1941, petitioner, this case. upon the AKM, default of appointed permanent was receiver of that association’s assets. Thereafter followed the vest ing order, September 4,1943, suit, April 22,1946. this
Upon grant petition the limited certiorari, for 902, argued the issues this Court and before now decided whether appointment petitioner ás 12, 1941, June appoint- or his permanent ment as September 29,1941, receiver on by re- back, passed lation him royalties title to claim ,June 12, as of Furthermore, since, as will subse- quently appear, peti- we conclude these issues tioner, we must freezing whether the order consider barred a subsequent judicial unlicensed transfer the order appointing permanent receiver.6
First. permanent Sep- receiver on tember 29, 1941, concededly would have vested in peti- permanent tioner as receiver all right, title and-interest AKM in its claim if against ASCAP the freezing order .of June had petitioner’s not intervened after ap- june pointment as temporary receiver on 12, 1941. to,the opinions 5 For relating petitioner’s the New York courts against ASCAP, see Propper Buck, action Journal, v. 106 N. Y. Law 101, 29, 1941, p. 1268, October 5; Propper Buck, No. App. col. v. 263 807, (1st Dept.); Propper Buck, Div. 32 N. Y. S. 2d 103 178 Misc. 76, (Sup. Co.), 33 Y. 11 affirmed, App. N. S. 2d Ct. N. Y. 263 Div. 948, 134; Propper Taylor, 34 N. Y. S. 2d 186 Misc. 58 N. Y. S. (Sup. Co.), affirmed, 2d App. Ct. N. Y. Div. 62 N. Y. S. (1st Dept.); Propper Taylor, S., 2d 602 186 Misc. N. Y. 2d (Sup. Co.), modified, App. Ct. N. Y. 62 N. Y. S. Div. (1st Dept.). 2d 601 brought petition This latter issue was forward for cer tiorari, Question argument discussion Presented No. and before its although by.brief formally requested by Court, at bar no order to effect was entered.
Accepting position, the question of whether ap- the. pointment permanent as related back to the date receivership, so as to place title to the in permanent claim the receiver as of 12, June 1941, and the question as appointment to whether the permanent as receiver itself in vested title the petitioner, notwithstand- deter-, ing prior freezing order, depend upon alike ruination as to whether freezing order made invalid subsequent any by judicial transfer of title action. vesting order in question, here Vesting Order No. Reg. Fed. was executed September on subsequent a date to the permanent receiver. So parties far as the to this liti-. gation are concerned, by specific its terms it vested Custodian title to the of AKM property only.7 Nothing presented- in- this case calls our attention to any effort made by Custodian to vest in himself any title to the claim that might permanent be receiver for the benefit of creditors and ultimately for AKM or en- those titled to its assets on distribution,8 nor do adjudicate we Enemy Act, (c) See with the App. U. C. 7§§ S.. and 616: any property foreign any country and or interest of
Ҥ 616..... vest, as, terms, or when, upon thereof shall and directed national by President, agency person may designated or such President, upon from time to time such terms and con- may -prescribe ditions property as the President such or interest held, used, shall be administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt States, with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United designated, agency any person may perform and such all accomplishment pur- acts incident or furtherance of these poses; Finanz-Korp., Clark v.
See Uebersee S. 480.. 8 Compare Sutherland, Great Northern R. Co. v. corporation where the Custodian vested in himself order on a appearing corporation’s of stock in the name shares books ' enemy. an alien subject blocking may not be sub- may be that all pertinent, vested order, far as The- his to do so. right s.o right AKM all “All . . claim . [of in the Custodian to] prof share of way royalty, monies ... receive *6 with “all causes emolument,” together its or other copyrights. to” the aforesaid respect . . . with action AKM, property of to was debt of This claim ASCAJP April 10, AKM, regulations as defined 2905. 14, 1941, Reg. June 6 Fed. (c), 1401 and Reg. 5 Fed. defining prop regulation refers to the The latter citation Enemy .Act, effective with the erty, under the vesting order.9 at the time of permanent receiver appointment as petitioner's Prior to President, vesting on June order, and later 8785, 6 Fed. by Executive Order No. prescribed had by or on' 2897, that certain transactions behalf Reg. unless prohibited AKM were associations such as Austrian pe- judicial appointing for the order No license licensed. receiver was asked for or obtained. permanent titioner pursuant authority was issued Order No. 8785 (b)5 Act of by President October granted § by the Joint Resolu amended, particularly 6, 1917, as forbade, 1A, “All Th order 1940.10 May tion of banking institutions any between transfers of credit war during . .” States; Authority within United . . Act, by Enemy First ject vesting. Trading as amended with the (1) (B). Compare Act, 838, 839, 55 Title III War Powers Stat. Enemy Act, Trading with the Bishop, Judicial Construction 721,723. L. Rev. Harv. 838, 840, App. 50 U. S. C. Stat. §'617. 179: 54 Stat. any period of national “During during or other time of war through may, by President, President emergency declared otherwise, investigate, regulate, may any. agency designate, or that he may regulations prescribe, as he prohibit, such and or under rules foreign ex- otherwise, any by or transactions means of licenses banking by payments or change, between or transfers of credit President, . . .” . institutions as defined any period emergency of national to prohibit other President given such transfers the Joint Reso- lution. No. 8785 “the a pe- Order declared existence of national emergency.” riod of unlimited The same Resolution authorized the President and regulations “banking rules and specifically define April The President is institutions.” had appli sued similar order similar transfers prohibiting guard cable nationals of and Denmark to ^Norway in transfers about the German brought such vasion of Executive Order those countries. No. ;to intents Reg. purposes Fed. It contained all and 11 C “banking the same institutions.” See § definition regulations thereunder, thereof. order there by the Resol approved fore the were Joint definition, *7 ution.11 to transactions of this applicable The definition AKM, freezing Austrian order of June national, under accept this definition 1941, is set out below.12 We by as the Resolution. authorized By permanent receiver, appointing the order claim of was directed trans- AKM ASCAP to be AKM From ASCAP’s petitioner. ferred from The. point debt; of it was a from AKM’s claim. view per- contemplated by of the order for a obligation shift 11 54Stat. 179: of'April 10, and
“Sec. Order Numbered 8389 Executive Secretary regulations by general rulings issued thereunder Treasury hereby approved and confirmed.” Reg. 2898, 6 Fed. §5: The, shad ‘banking used this Order “F. term institution’ as incidentally business any, engaged primarily in the person include or or credits, purchasing or banking, granting transferring of of of or thereof, and,sellers selling-foreign exchange procuring purchasers or as any holding for others principal agent, person or credits or brokers; and, business, each part of or direct or incidental' his any person office, correspondent of agent, principal, home branch ” ‘banking engaged regarded separate institution.’ be as a so shall manent “prop- receiver was a transaction involved erty in which” there was “interest any nature indirect,” direct whatsoever, designated aliens of countries, including Austria.13 But the Order Executive of June did prohibit not all without transactions involving property. specified license Austrian-owned It the prohibited however, transactions, by so all- categories to make inclusive as it clear that purpose to require transactions property of involving nationals designated foreign regu- countries to carried out under except lations of this Government, certain transactions provided 12, April such as are for in Ruling General No. Reg. 7 Fed. 2991. The Executive forbids Order transfers of credit. As “credit” not defined we, Order or regulation, considering credits as subject vesting Enemy Act, under the give ordinary it its due on meaning obligation parties between accounting credit, transactions. This owed by ASCAP to was in to be AKM, effect directed AKM permanent transferred receiver order from no doubt is, as receiver. There we thinly, a voluntary a bank of transfer a credit transferring bank from of a known Austrian the account to the account of vio- banking another institution would late Executive No. as a of credit transfer Order between banking institutions. remains, then, determine whether ASCAP
petitioner are banking institutions such character subject prohibition to be No. Exécutive Order *8 A§ credit between bank- “transfers of any A ing institutions.” reading definition, of the President’s note 12 shows supra, that do fall within words they “any person holding or credits others as a direct part incidental of his . . . .” business is true 8785, supra. Executive No. Order banking, institution or the to make ASCAP conception departure ordinary is a from the definition says “banking meaning of institution.” Petitioner of the fantasy.” The definition is “utter to so construe the pointed has had out, as we have definition, however, congressional obvious in- Furthermore, the ratification. flexibility Congress in the term “bank- to allow tention ing by leaving its definition to the Presi- institution” “banking purpose. phrase light The dent sheds on its Holiday in Bank Proc- and defined institution” used 1690, was 6, 1933, 48 Stat. lamation of March Banking adopted by Emergency of March Relief Act delegation President with a 48 Stat. delegation Evidently power of the of definition. atypical permit bring insti- of financial forms him to emergency The Act act. within the reach tutions Enemy Trading grafted with the on to the of March 9 was again extended Act was and, when that Act of 1917 problem, foreign wide President’s assets meet the ready “banking power instru- institution” was a to define arising myriad cope circumstances with the ment to power. foreign shifts of assets. the control of scope generous given peace accom- in war must be Enemy Through plish purpose. its deprive sought forms, the nation Act, its various opportunity potential, secure enemies, actual wrongs against perpetrate advantages or to to themselves through of assets the use citizens the United or its States country.14 happened has neces- do so To to be in this others some to our citizens sitated inconvenience any adverse to here, involved in actions who, not cannot however, fact, nation’s interest. That lead Treasury Department, Administration See States United States Gov the United Property Financial & Controls Wartime ’ (1942), pp..1-4. ernment *9 Executive Order. coverage narrow us to the broad made clear.15 ASCAP and prior Our have decisions an for petitioner, receiver, each hold credits others part business,” and therefore “incidental [their] AKM held a credit for “banking ASCAP institutions.” receivership order, would hold and, permanent after the it for receiver, in turn would hold that credit for the who AKM. AKM’s creditors and liability hold a transfer of credit from
We AKM', liability to a owed ASCAP owed ASCAP prohibition against would violate the receiver, transfers of credit. turn examination of the effect of
We now federal Order No. June Executive state court order,” subsequent on “freezing so-called petitioner September 1941, appointing order is made to be permanent That examination receiver. time of at the recognition that, of the fact had not AKM ASCAP order, title to the claim not' development did been vested in the Custodian. That place September 4, vesting take until the' order of petitioner’s freezing a mere order contention that transferring prohibit not order subsequent judicial does freezing previous blocked assets covered opinion with subsequently We deal in this order. will passed to the claim question of whether title to law, ap receiver, under York his New happen point, we this did not pointment. At this assume freezing effect of only question and examine ar judicial Petitioner’s subsequent on the order. order would immobilize is that such construction gument convenience until it suits the Custodian’s frozen Garvan, v. 554; United States Central Trust Co. U. S. 1; R. Co. v. Suther Foundation, S. Great Northern Chemical 272 U. Allen, Clark land, 326 U. S. Markham Finanz-Korp., 332 S. 480. Uebersee vest, contrary the need protection against trans foreign
fers of needs, .says, funds. These will *10 by provision be served the to against payments claim ants from frozen funds E. without license. 0. argues by lB.16 He further that the Joint Resolutior Congress empower deprive. did not the President to New of power York all to in deal with the ASCAP debt e proceeding 977-b, under Civil covering Practice Act § liquidate actions of of receivers local assets def.unct corporations. foreign
It is that litigation true between local claimants foreign or in blocked or possession owners those of proceed frozen assets rights could to a of determination between the claimant and foreign the national without might the passing blocked into hands that use it nation, the detriment of the of so long welfare payment could not be made without license. Noth- ing in Enemy regulations the with Trading Act or the specifically eo litigation forbids in nomine state courts. plan prohibition of transactions unlicensed foreigp comprehends blocking nationals of transfers of credits and of vesting local of such assets nationals under Trading the with regulations Act and there- Enemy If under. blocked, may vesting may transactions not follow. property, the Custodian vests When blocked authority passes the Custodian and his to vest suggestion Congress not, There is a could that because abrogate Amendment, constitutionally power Tenth of New York through courts, peacetime, its to deal with the local assets of foreign corporations. placed upon defunct The chief reliance is Clark Williard, that, states, 294 U. S. a case that held as between corporate the state assets had- control of their location liquidation. seriously the, doubted that cannot be distribution danger sufficiently grave freezing order, of war. was time of the at the 14, 1941, justify respecting action Austrian June President’s Clark, property. Cf. Silesian-American 474 Corp. U. . -477 questioned except provided hold cannot freezing order of Enemy with Act.17 The Trading terms immobilized the assets covered its June per not from person shift might title to them so that could deter son, except by license, until Government prosecution needed for those assets were whether mine compensate our or our war or to citizens the threatened damages governments for the done selves v. Chemical Founda affected. United States nationals Clark, tion, Corp. v. 1, 11; Silesian-American held York Appeals Court of New We assume Bank title to blocked Singer Yokohama Specie statutory re- from pass could without license assets Enemy ceiver to creditor.18 As *11 on federal constitu-. legislation Act federal founded is has author- however, States provisions, tional the- United the ity proper carrying laws necessary make all itwith power The to enact carries power into execution. legislation. authority meaning final the declare Geist, 95. Federal 89, v. 316 S. Corp. U. Prudence 17 (a). (c), Finanz- App. 50 C. 7 9 Clark v. Uebersee U. S. Cf. §§ Garvan, 254 480, Trust Co. U. Korp., 332 U. S. Central 182, Sutherland, 567-68; R. 273 554, Northern Co. v. U. Great 74, 79; Josephberg v. Mark Cummings, 296 Co. v. U. S. Becker ham, 644, F. 2d 649. 152 18 726,7.28: 550, 2d 542, 58 N. E. 293 Y.N. foreign governing regulations transactions .that Federal “The fact license under payment until a exchange prevent the Standard make 8389, amended, procured does not is as Executive Order No. (See pay. Agency obligation York New conditional Ruling (4) under No. Treasury Department, General United States Feuchtwanger v. Central as also Order No. 8389 amended; Executive 342.)” Bank, Y. Hanover 288 N. Compare 1949, J., 95, 16, p. 1735. May L. No. Y.N. Cf. id. 332, 43 Rumaniei, N. N. A. Y. v. Banca Polish Comm’n Relief E. 2d 345. N. courts have so held as to issue in case, this this 169 F. 2d and in Bernstein N. V. Nederlandsche- etc., 173 Amerikaansche F. 2d 73. The Act Enemy range. is national in The effect aof fed- freezing eral order on subsequent should be same title in all transfers of states. law State determines appointment effect receiver on title to the property administered, but federal law determines whether the event of can property free the from prior Lyeth Hoey, control. Cf. S. 188, 191, et seq.
Petitioner contends also that the administrative in- terpretation of the Executive Order of June 14, has to permit rights been as to litigation the frozen assets. That is by Ruling borne out General of April 21, No. Reg. 2991, promulgated petitioner 7 Fed. after had begun referring his suit ASCAP to Executive Order No. as amended June ap- plicable section is out in set margin.19 It -observed, however, proviso (d) limits rights litigant may obtain as right to such the owner of blocked by voluntary could confer act. General Ruling 12, as came by No. it after the suit the receiver against ASCAP was and after the order appointing started permanent receiver, is not treated us 19“(d) Any general transfer affected Order and/or ruling in, arising of, any proceeding and involved out or action any shall, within far Court the United States so as affected *12 general ruling, the Order this valid and enforceable and/or determining purpose parties proceeding the to or of for the the action Provided, however, rights litigated; the and liabilities therein That attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or no judicial process right, power, greater other shall confer or create a privilege to, in, respect any property or blocked with or interest by property the create or confer account than owner of such could voluntary prior appropriate license.” act to issuance of an Reg. 31, August 11 Fed. 8351.
See No. also Public Circular as of only is a statement It useful this case. decisive^ of liti- as to effect determination the administrative a license. gation without of May Joint Resolution that the
It is our conclusion Order, April 10, put of and the Executive property covered plan for control effect a valid into any change of regulation prohibited that title by the subsequent of by reason property appointment We do not now.un- of petitioner permanent receiver. of every determination say rights whether dertake litigation concerning unlicensed blocked of purpose our determination *We voidable- base in title to assets prevent to- blocked Congress shifts of against transfers of Executive Order prohibition language pro- of order this.' such a-credit as The prohibits transfers payment.. more than hibits rulings administrative are do not think the credit.. We contrary. contention, how- advances the Second. .Thq thaji had ASCAP .ever, claim title AKM’s passed by temporary him his blocking or 194Í, prior freezing order on June to. " petitioner argues, AKM 'Therefore, of June by be frozen the immobilization "nothing that could had vesting order. order taken state, e., whether involved, law i. precise of the New receiver under 977-b York. his vested with virtue Act is Civil Practice by the been decided which has appointment, is one not ,and. the Both the District Court York courts. New it question 'and answered Appeals faced Court ,liaw dealing In issues'of negative. in the hesi- Courts, federal we are enter into Judgments federal courts skilled decisions tant-to overrule their, conclusions shown law of particular states unless
487 Spiegel Commissioner, unreasonable. Estate v. Stuart, 707-708; Helvering 317 701, U. S. U, Co., MacGregor 315 154; v. State Mutual 280. We problem examine that point from view. shall Having precise no state case on the statute before it, Appeals the Court of dealing turned to cases with temporary receiverships in and equity proceedings under analogous statutes. These seem that tem- cases hold porary equity20 statutory21 receivers of neither the nor but, class obtain a title, contrary, merely right on the possession. nothing The courts below found 977-b which evidenced an intent that the result under that section should be Admittedly otherwise. there is no express declaration such an intent.
The statutory language easily susceptible of varying interpretations. 12 4, 10, 11, See subsections and 19. These sections are not clear as the title taken by the temporary authority receiver or the him granted to holding handling of claims debtors.. of Appeals Court concluded, however, that where in subsection 12 ap- the statute that- receiver “any said pointed . powers . . duties shall have all ...
20 g., v.Gardner, 334, 26 Keeney E. 124 Y. see N. N. E. Decker Co., 396, Home Insurance 71 N. Y. 401. g., Brewing Co., App. 21E. Mutual v. N. Y. & C. P. F. 16 Co. 149, 101; Metropolitan Sanborn, Div. N. Y. Ins. Co. Life Corporation Misc. 69 N. Y. Y. S. see N. General Law 168, and thereto. Petitioner calls our atten annotations §§ Co., tion- to v. American Tube Iron Y. & N. Nealis Appeals. N. not cited Court of This case E. a case says “is vested receiver under different statute temporary represents fully corporation and its creditors permanent judgment P. after of dissolution.” final case, however, right This receiver to involved the a. opinion problem than the dis sue and deals with rather See In re right possession tinction between and title. obtain . 877, 884. Co., App. 39, 52 Warren E. N. Y. S. Smith Div. trustees upon receivers and and conferred possessed by York,” meaning laws of the state of New by *14 provision takes the temporary receiver under “that a in New York.” temporary receivers powers usual of other that otherwise pointed out 169 2d It was F. 327. temporary powers grant the and restricted specific to. 4 be purposeless. would by subsection receiver first, a vest the time that here for Petitioner contends pre is an essential ing temporary receiver of title over the rem jurisdiction requisite the exercise'of which association within of a nonresident the state assets an is that The contention by publication. is served law of state issue affirmance of court below the the at subject to. an 977-b proceedings will render under the doctrine grounds, tack on constitutional under opinion argu In the Pennoyer Neff, 95 S. 714. our v. U. holds Pennoyer merely v. is ment without merit. Neff against obtained personal cannot be a. judgment that at recognizes publication. by nonresident on service it is sufficient p. for an in rem action 733 that control state, subject the property be within form of service be some court, there parties reasonably notice give is calculated which Cf. judgment. by the may whose interests be affected re Meyer, 457, 463. first Milliken v. U. S. 311 title,' ways seizure can be than quirement met other property, g., injunction against an transfer by e. Bank, by S. Pennington v. Fourth National U. Bicknell, by U. attachment, Herbert within holding property personal party on. the service California, state, Security Savings Bank n ain that where We havé no doubt 282. ap-. court, by control of here
and comes under the' permit receiver, it is fair to pointment temporary Luckett, Nat. Bank service. substituted Anderson Mabee, seq.; U. S. et see McDonald v. U. S.
Since the determination of law the state concern- temporary ing the courts below accept is not we it for unreasonable, pur- as correct poses of this case. appears petitioner’s
A suggestion briefs, but not in presented petition for questions certiorari, judgments that the below should be vacated and the case remanded to the District Court to be until parties held can secure from the of New York a courts decision as to whether the receiver took title to the claim ASCAP. Waiving the failure raise the issue petition certiorari,22 we consider the conten- tion in deference to the earnestness with point which the *15 pressed If dissent.23 the state law is that passed prior his freezing order, Custodian, by assumption of the opinion, nothing by vesting would obtain his order AKM property. Such would ruling unnecessary a make any consideration of other issue.
This suggested procedure has been
in order
followed
to avoid a
a
decision on
federal constitutional
issue—
Spector
McLaughlin,
101;
Motor Co. v.
323
S.
Chicago
U.
Dairies,
v.
Fieldcrest
316 U. S.
Railroad Comm’n v.
Co.,
Pullman
312 U. S.
but cf. Public Utilities
Co.,
Comm’n v.
Fuel
United
Gas
317 U. S.
462-63—
only
where the
issue in the case was one of
law,
jurisdiction
although
Bankruptcy
federal
was based on the
Thompson Magnolia
Co.,
Act.
v.
Petroleum
309 U. S.
diversity
478. We have
in a
citizenship
refused
case
difficulty
to allow the
of an issue of state law to deter us
Palmer,
Connecticut R. & L. Co. v.
The cases mentioned above Court required where of single issues, submission from the controversy,, excised to stale courts cases in equity. were The discretion of to equity upon the terms which it would grant its in remedies, the light our rule to avoid interpretation of the Federal necessary, Constitution. unless was relied upon justify departure to procedure. from normal In the Magnolia we case, ple- directed that the trustee file nary proceedings state to determine title liti-. court gation complete necessarily complaint in itself. The here in a single count recovery seeks of the debt from ASCAP and determination of the to Custodian’s title the claim Assuming vis-a-vis the receiver. quieting that title equitable proceeding chattel is an District can, by cutting Court by refusing out title issue to proceed in controversy compel unless obeyed, proceedings pro- Custodian York may New whatever litigate vide only narrow issue of tem- receiver, would porary there remain con- problem trol of receiver, by contempt threats of action', to him, keep raising from such proceedings federal issues such as right secure title as permanent judicial freezing action after the or immo- through bilization order. This federal issue wé decided above. Furthermore, as reasonably require the state court could complete adjudication controversy, the District Court would perhaps compelled stay be proceedings protect state court its jurisdiction.' own U. S. C. Otherwise, § in sending fragment the litigation to a state court, might federal court find itself blocked judicata, res with the result the entire federal would controversy ousted froih *17 note See placed Congress. courts, where was federal it 17, supra. in a useful device special issues is of
The submission as existed circumstances in such administration judicial cases, and Pullman Magnolia; Fieldcrest Spector, in the circumstances, 320 special in the absence supra, but impede used to normal 237, it is not to be U. S. at granted courts have been where federal of action course controversy. of the jurisdiction decision in this case suggestion that a reject
We delayed until the courts courts federal should law. state York have'settled the of New point that the makes the further The Third. right, he no determining that had below judgment is against beyond AKM ASCAP interest to claim' because that the federal district court competence virtue the state court the hands of he pass, argues, if title did not receivership. Even possession of court, had through him the state he, arid his virtue of the cláim freezing order. promulgation before like Kline rulings of cases placed is on the
Reliance
Princess
Co.,
226, 229, 231;
260 U. S.
Burke Construction
456, 466; and Farmers’ Loan
S.
Affirmed. Mr. Chief Vinson took con- part Justice no sideration decision this case. of on Mr. ground dissents Justice Jackson the. ASCAP is not a institution under the definition banking in Executive Order No. part.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter, dissenting in The Court recognizes that the' determining central effect the Alien Property freezing Custodian’s and vest- of ing orders is the petitioner’s effect under New York of law as temporary Í941. 13,. June receiver It observes that “The precise involved, law e., i. whether under 977-b the New York Civil is with title Practice Act- vested by virtue of his has appointment, which not been one And it concedes that the New York courts.” decided easily York the relevant New “is language statutes puts its interpretations.” varying susceptible of Yet.it inter-- though that interpretation on those statutes own only may displaced tomorrow courts pretation interpre- power which have to render authoritative New courts of the State of tation of New York la^—the York. which come before us in deci other eases that have
In
necessity
for its decision
a federal issue or
sion of
law,
of State
depended
seriously
question
on a
doubtful
made
application
should first be
we have directed
disposition
for final
State
courts
Co.,
Magnolia
Petroleum
question. Thompson
State
v. Pullman
Comm’n
Texas
309 U.
Railroad
*19
Dairies,
Co.,
496; Chicago
U.
v. Fieldcrest
S.
Service,
McLaughlin,
Inc. v.
168; Spector Motor
U. S.
101;
v. Watson,
L.
In
A.
U. S.
F. of
equity
of a federal
of
of
cases the discretion
court
these
way
exercised in a
which retained
practicably
could
permitting adjudi
case while
jurisdiction
ultimate
of the
In each
in the State courts.
question
cation
State
procedures capable
provid
were
State
available
there
already
decision,
had not
litigation
and the
ing
prompt
a
time
amount of
an unconscionable
consumed such
Utilities
Cf. Public
inexpedient.
them
make recourse to
The
Co.,
.495 parallel systems between relations harmonious ing (cid:127) where, because courts a situation and federal State the last word controlled, State courts had iaw State only make an in- court at. best could and so a federal a dominant consideration That this was guess. formed appears plainly language the- Court in the mind of following passages opinions. of its illustrative: meaning last on the of Article of- 1. “The word the last Statutes, Civil and therefore word on the Texas Railroad in this authority of the Commission statutory nor to but case, neither to us the district court belongs In situation a federal supreme tips Texas. court of by making an a court of asked to decide equity is displaced tomorrow answer which bemay tentative pro- law adjudication. reign hardly . . . The is state ruling court thus unnecessary moted if federal state . . . supplanted controlling decision court. dis public higher upon “Few have a claim interests of a than the avoidance of need-' cretion chancellor federal relates policies, policy whether the less friction law, Boy Fenner v. criminal to the enforcement of the kin, Dodge, Motor Co. v. 240; Spielman 271 U. specialized of a scheme S. 89; or the administration U. enterprises, business Penn liquidating embarrassed Williams, authority final sylvania v. interpret regulatory doubtful laws of of a state court Co., state, Interborough Gilchrist v. *20 Hamill, 52, S. 61. These cases re cf. Hawks U. appropriate a to our federal flect of abstention doctrine a wise dis system whereby courts, ‘exercising the federal cretion,’ ‘scrupulous of authority restrain their because regard govern for state rightful independence . judiciary ments’ and for the of the federal working smooth Di Cavanaugh v. Gio- See S. Looney, U. Assn., Railroad Ins. 296 U. 73.” Camden vanni v. ., 499-501. Co U. S. Texas v. Pullman Comm’n we procedure which opinion that the “We are of 2. followed here. Pullman case should be followed meaning of ordinance final to the say has the Illinois alleged final word It also has the on the in question. and the Act: The ordinance state conflict between the Court, which Circuit Court District determination more we, might anything or could not be make Appeals, prediction as to the ultimate than a forecast —a decision Court Illinois. ... Supreme As we said case, equity equal 'The Pullman resources will a avoid the waste of deci adjustment tentative any policies.’ friction state . . . sion’ and ‘needless discretion, of a guides an exercise 'sound which equity.’ of courts .of Beal v. Missouri determination Co., In case, R. this U. S. [312 50]. Pacific parties calls for to the state discretion remission which alone can to the courts, give definitive answer posed. Plainly, they more major questions constitute the forum for the trial of those See appropriate issues. of delay, L. Rev. Considerations inconven Harv. parties, upon which ience, urged and cost have been here us, not call for different result. For' we are do as to larger appropriate with the much concerned relationship authorities func between federal Chicago whole.” v. Fieldcrest tioning as harmonious Dairies, 316 171-73. - if, thought, . . Court Florida 3. “. as the District due seeking law is not to raise- the self-executing, suits process question question other 'constitutional any premature supplied would be until Florida sanctions A today might, its enforcement. decision merits therefore, advisory opin- amount to no more than an of equity inadequate ion. . . . The resources are not *21 fric- unnecessary so as .to avoid problem with the to deal forward go while cases selective policies, with tion adjudi- orderly expeditious ah for courts the state Watson, L. v. A. F. questions.” law the state cation of 598-99. S.U. re- present, issue is no constitutional though here, So federal tribunals of State respective orbits gard for judicial administra- a matter of reasons, as best is the adjudication the New definitive tion, requiring for basis of our on the proceeding rather than York courts New York meaning of the to the guess own tentative justifi- is no may remain federal issues statutes. That New York courts to submit refusing cation have no occa- York law. We of New separable these federal on to decide they gowill to assume that sion expressly retained court has federal questions when a Power Comm’n Cf. Federal decide them. jurisdiction to Co., 307 U. L.& Power Pacific the District Court case to remand the We should pending submission jurisdiction to retain instructions procéedings of appropriate New York the courts of AKM’s claim whether question his upon passed to ASCAP temporary receiver.