*1 an- paramount question to be COMPANY OIL STANDARD-VACUUM properties in swered here is whether the v. State, question United UNITED STATES. were taken compensated for which can be 50336. No. Consti- amendment to the under the fifth tution. Claims. Court July 1957. clearly The facts show that erty in Imperial hostilities, under after the outbreak Enemy Japanese provisions of the (No. Property Custody of De- Law Japanese Imperial 1941) cember Enforcement Ordinance Relative to the Enemy Custody (Im- Property Law

perial of December Ordinance No. 1179 1941). custody properties Title to and registered name and recorded Enemy ap- Property Custodian Ministry pointed by Japanese Finance. seizure, Japan At time having

sovereign independent nation jurisdiction power and over territory, within its respect and its actions with plaintiff’s properties were le- gally valid and divested the any interest in them. Ricaud Ameri- v. 304, 310, can Metal 38 S.Ct. Shapleigh Mier, 62 L.Ed. 468, 471, 299 U.S. 81 L.Ed. August 14, (U. time) On S. accepted Japanese pro of the Potsdam visions Declaration of defining July 26, 1945, Jap the terms for offering surrender, and to surren unconditionally to the Allied Powers. der This offer was City, Collins, George New York S. accepted day on the same and Leonard plaintiff. Wallace Warrack or and the Government was City, Jr., Hoefler, York were on New F. formally dered to cease hostilities the briefs. Supreme surrender Commander Washington, Hochstein, D. D. David place for the Allied Powers at a time and Atty. Asst. C., Perry whom was Gen. designated by him. After the in to be Morton, for defendant. W. signed, of surrender was strument authority Judge, and Before subject was made to rule the state the WHITAKER, MADDEN Commander the Allied Judges. LARAMORE, The instrument of surrender Powers. accepted Commander LARAMORE, Allied Powers for the Republic China, an action This is Kingdom, damages Union of Soviet So recover for the plaintiff seeks Republics, and in the interests properties cialistic alleged of certain use United Nations at war by plain which are owned signed by represen Japan, and also located tiff *2 466 Japan. the to return powers with at war of nine tatives Douglas instances plaintiff. erties to those the In Immediately General thereafter by being Supreme Com used where the named MacArthur was Occupation Forces, com and the the Powers for Allied

mander the physical possession con could military occupation and informed that the menced as the by not be Japan. effected until such time trol of longer required the Supreme 1945, 3, September the On Occupation Forces. issued Powers Allied Commander for the Japanese Government directive to the occupation military of The control and disposal of the requiring place at the it to authority Japan under sole executive the Powers occupation the Allied of forces Supreme of the the Al- Commander for use. required their for all local resources 1945, began 2, September lied Powers on regulations estab- were Procurement inception occupation and from its the acquisition facilities of lished for undertaking the Japan of was an allied subjected question properties in the responsibility. properties The use of the Japanese Govern- demand from the by in the Su- was determined ment. preme Powers Commander for the Allied necessary to be of Eastern Commission’s the Under the Far 6, March policy decision and directive the 1947, Supreme for Commander the property was, Thus because restore authorized Allied Powers was legally victory, Allied allied had to the allied owner Powers from restored un- and title seized been Supreme der a directive of authorization, Su- to such Pursuant mander for the Allied Powers. Powers preme for Allied Commander point It is to be noted at this Japanese Gov- instructions issued Supreme action taken was Com concerning procedure to be ernment Powers, mander for the Allied not effecting in restoration followed Anglo- United As States. was said property to allied owner. Shipping Company, Chinese Ltd. v. Unit for re- The filed demands F.Supp. 554, ed 127 130 Ct. ques- properties in turn each Cl. 362: Supreme for with the Commander tion “ * * * Ja- Powers, supplemented Allied pan venture, participated awas requests restoration with final them America, the United States of procedures estab- accordance China, Kingdom, Supreme Commander lished ** Russia; *.” its final Allied Powers. In each of requests stated: This leaves no doubt but that plaintiff’s properties that General understand was not an act “We Headquarters, Commander States the Allied but Powers, taking by Powers. There was no for Allied of all relieved thus the will be preservation, cus- is not under fifth maintenance and liable amendment. respect MacArthur, responsibilities Koki Hirota v. See todial set 93 L.Ed. after the date Flick said restoration, Johnson, U.S.App.D.C. 70, with the consistent F.2d repossession physical procedure for De- Procurement under open To hold otherwise would be mand.” only claims of not door to citizens occupancy alike for all such demands for re- noncitizens Pursuant Powers, causing requests final thus for Allied turn restoration, entire Commander to bear almost the financial only burden, the war but also Allied Powers directed fulfilling public purpose, e. for prepared to this i. peace. are This we obligation occupiednation. as an do. including Japanese sovereignty, war circumstances unfortunate *3 power requisition pub- to for a misery very only human to often lead not purpose, course, extended, lic all the to is unfor- It as well. financial loss but to territory, whether within its' com- no received plaintiff has that tunate private ownership of that prop- occupancy of the pensation for the British, Dutch, Japanese, any was in can, Ameri- hand other question,1 on the erties in but or In the instant other citizens. plaintiff’s that perhaps is fortunate it case, by occupy- by selected protected preserved and property was ing by requisitioned forces and occupancy. Powers’ Allied belong happened anese to to tak- being amendment no fifth There an American would citizen. That fact pe- States, by plaintiff’s ing the United completely seem to immaterial. The be is dismissed. tition important thing was that is so ordered. It Japanese was taken government. purposes for the of that Judge, concurs. was, then, taking by There States. There was use United States MADDEN, forces, forces, housing or fur- allied country Japan. When a nished to defeated them is oc cupied, right the victor impose has the to Japanese It seems that Govern- government upon the of the defeated ment, may laws, under its which laws country housing the burden of the oc have been dictated mander, may cupying troops. This would be true existing or have been the occupation whether the was a that of housing Japan, pay laws did rent for joint force, single or the forces of a private persons which it took victorious nation. In the instant case occupying order to furnish it to the Commander for the Allied forces. It tendered such rent to the right by issuing Powers exercised this plaintiff, legal at the rate which was un- Japanese his directive to the der a the laws of is all that That duty It Japanese then became the Japanese or a Britisher or Dutchman Government to make available to the oc would have been that is entitled to and cupying housing forces they such as se plaintiff, American, that the was an lected and needed. to, Japan and entitled for its subject Japanese had the to laws. The Japanese The sovereign power to refused the tender. It made a mistake duty exercise to doing housing comply Whether, Japanese so. under obtain laws, money Supreme Commander. we still available to it directive agent acting problem Su do not know. That is a for it as an not It was Japanese Commander, di Government. Plain- authorized preme housing petition his must for tiff’s be dismissed. secure by him to rected expense. was It troops his nation’s at joins Judge, fore- in the obligation a defeated as fulfilling own going opinion. sovereign. ob it How occupied housing fulfill that needed tained WHITAKER, Judge (dissenting). governed problem, obligation its own agree opinions I like our cannot with the law If its law. its own Amendment, majority. place, it In do including the first I our Fifth law, agree assigned by Judges for reason it took with the pay what have would however, was, rent bound Rent Control tendered Plaintiff Japan Apparently by Japan legal will Ordinance. but rate at today. ing pay claiming accept amount was not it refused national; would national and that LITTLETON LARAMORE and nonliability pay against does But no recourse it. have property of apply this same rule just compensation for the an American wit, an American citizen corporation an it or property, to plaintiff’s enemy surren- but has after the surrender, ? After is the dered Allied Powers.- enemy erty of an still American citizen property? States, Great enterprise of the United fought Powers, protection war was for the Britain, Russia expense property, American lives each Power was liable *4 forces., protection property as of as well this its own maintenance of citizens; property it was clothing the purchased of our Food fought troops, to secure of American Great restoration for its United States Liability property the en- that had been seized troops, for its etc. Britain emy. purpose partly This accom- purchases was on the Government these was plished making them, The cost the order of the alone. on it requiring the the troops mander property of quartering also the restoration was of responsibility Govern- seized Govern- several of engaged ment. The re- was ments. That each of them it, stored re- title to would have others affords in a venture with the Anglo liability. possession except escape occu- stored for its See from States, Army. pancy Shipping From American v. United Chinese Co. sovereignty on, Japanese over F.Supp. 553, 361. that time Ct.Cl. 127 130 ended; this was its dominion However, my seri there is in mind and control over it was surrendered liability of of ous recog- the title its former owner was ground. out After the States on another nized. Japan, plaintiff’s prop break of war with was, erty, Japan, under inter located Thereafter, this could not in during law, enemy property, and enemy property. national reason be classified as hostilities, least, utiliza was liable to at It of an American cor- was tion, destruction, by our forces or even to poration, which been liberated from had impunity; no redress the owner had Japanese. hands of the against therefor. United States right Now, Army of the American States, Juragua Iron Ltd. United v. Occupation to use it furtherance of 99, 297, 29 42 affirmed 212 U.S. S. Ct.Cl. purposes the open is not 520; L.Ed. Herrera 53 v. United Ct. question; used, to so but when it States, used, enemy property, as but as 316; Oppenheim, L.Ed. International corporation. property of American an (6th Ed.) II, Law Vol. section Its owner entitled to the same rec- Ed.) (7th p. Wheaton International Law ompense as owner of other 248; Hyde, (2d International Law Rev. public pur- Ed.) III, pp. Vol. 1726-1731. wit, just poses, payment to com- apply to the rule pensation. Does this States, a cor- or of the United citizen .a right, The United States had the as States, after the poration of the United conquered victor, require en- enemy? surrender (cid:127)formal occupation, emy pay the cost of includ- course, Technically, plaintiff’s ing prop- the war is rental value of peace treaty signed, erty; is mean until does not that the over necessary Japan’s forces are a can shift to shoul- United States Also, responsibility surrender. it will ders aftermath during disputed period under to one of own not be citizens taking property. could our Government of its re It must com- itself, use of quire pensate the citizen and then look Seery United Japan for restitution. F.Supp. 130 Ct.Cl. re- entitled I think the value of rental cover the fair restored erty to it the time title Japanese Govern- re-

ment, possession of it until

stored to a Commis- the case

I remand would amount. determine this

sioner to Gilleran, Plains, Y., John B. White N. Contracting plaintiffs Mount Vernon

Corp. and Louis Domenic G. DeFelice and *5 Icapilto Salinger, Frione, Cribari, V. & Gilleran, Vernon, Y., Mt. N. and B. John Plains, Y., White on N. were the brief. COR MOUNT VERNON CONTRACTING City, Coogan, William H. New York PORATION, Louis G. De Felice plaintiffs Corporation L. C. L. Doing Frione, Copartners Domenic V. Building Supplies Inc., The Windsor Name and Business Under Firm Sullivan, Hanrahan, Donovan, McGovern Style of D. & F. Construction Com Lane, City, & York New on the brief. Corporation pany, The L. C. L. Stern, Building Supplies Co., Inc., II, Washington, William A. Windsor D„ C., Atty. with whom was Gen. Asst. George Doub, Cochran for defendant. The UNITED STATES. No. 49110. Judge, Before MADDEN WHITAKER, States Court Claims. Judges. LARAMORE, July

MADDEN, damages alleged This a suit brought contract, breach Mount Vernon, which had with contract F, D and which had a Vernon, with Mount subcontract L. and Windsor which had subcon- C.L. plaintiffs D and F. Since tracts than Mount Vernon contractual relation with the United except States, none Mount Vernon bring eligible Since, suit. how- ever,' prime may, proper contractor bring circumstances, suit use subcontractors, of his we will benefit this suit as such a suit treat Mount Vernon.

Mount Vernon March 1943 made a Government, contract through Army Corps Engi- acted landing pave neers, and drain a field