United States Supreme Court
Zittman v. McGrath McCarthy
Argued: Feb. 28, 1951. --- Decided: May 28, 1951
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring.
I join in the opinion of the Court since it places control of the public interest phase of the controversy in the licensing power of the Custodian. Payment of claims requires a license. [1] A license, of course, may be refused when payment would accrue directly or indirectly to the benefit of the enemy. But the policy of the Act is in no way subverted by recognition of a lien which can ripen into a priority only if payment would have no such effect. Denial of the lien could be made only if the Act called for an equality of distribution among claimants, regardless of their innocence or guilt. I can find nothing in the Act which warrants leveling the good faith lien claimant to the unsecured status of the others. [2]
Mr. Justice REED, with whom Mr. Justice BURTON joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Notes edit
- ↑ See § 5(b) of the Trading With the Enemy Act, 40 Stat. 411, 415, as amended 54 Stat. 179, 55 Stat. 839, and 8 CFR, c. II, Part 511.
- ↑ The priority of debt claims contained in § 34(g), 60 Stat. 925, 928, does not purport to deal with creditors preferred by reason of a lien lawfully acquired in judicial proceedings.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse