Charles Evans Hughes

“ It was a suit by plaintiffs Sorenson and Nielsen as surviving partners, in which they alleged their citizenship and residence in the United States (and this does not now appear to be questioned) , to recover a debt claimed to be owing to the firm by an enemy corporation. The allegations of the bill of complaint met the requirements of the statute in every respect. It set forth the plaintiffs' claim, their non-enemy status, the transactions out of which their claim arose, and that they had given notice of the claim as the statute required. ”

“ He may sue 'to establish the interest, right, title, or debt so claimed'. The court is to determine whether his claim is established. If the claim is 'so established', the court is to order the delivery of property or payment 'to which the court shall determine said claimant is entitled'. Nothing could be clearer than that in a suit so brought the court is to determine every issue necessary to the establishment of the claim. ”

“ The United States had expressly consented in Section 9 (a) of the Trading with the Enemy Act that suits might be brought by a non-enemy claimant to have his claim against an enemy debtor satisfied out of the latter's property held by the Alien Property Custodian. The pertinent parts of the section are set forth in the margin. [2]
The statute provides that any person not an enemy or ally of enemy [3] 'claiming' any interest or right in the property seized or to whom any debt may be owing by the alien enemy may sue the Custodian and Treasurer. ”