DocketNumber: 16364_1
Citation Numbers: 301 F.2d 546, 112 U.S. App. D.C. 222, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 5673
Judges: Miller, Prettyman, Fahy
Filed Date: 3/15/1962
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
Appellee filed suit in the District Court under section 9(a) of the Trading with the Enemy Act
Appellee had resided in Germany with her husband between 1931 and 1946, during which period she was a German citizen. In April 1946 she left Germany and entered Switzerland under a temporary permit. She has continued to reside in Switzerland except for brief visits abroad. In 1958 she reacquired Swiss citizenship, which she had lost by her marriage in 1931 to a German citizen.
Appellant contends that the District Court was without jurisdiction because appellee was concededly a resident of Germany during World War II, that she thus acquired enemy status within the meaning of section 2(a) of the Act, that this status was not removed by her departure from Germany in 1946 and the subsequent establishment of Swiss residence, and that, accordingly, she may not maintain a suit under section 9(a) of the Act, which is available only to one who is not an “enemy” as that term is defined in section 2(a).
On the authority of N. V. Handelsbureau La Mola v. Kennedy, 112 U.S.App.D.C. -, 299 F.2d 923, the position of the Attorney General is sustained, the judgment is reversed, and the ease is remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. See also Kennedy v. Rommel, 112 U.S.App.D.C. -, 301 F.2d 544.
It is so ordered.
. 40 Stat. 411 (1917). as amended, 50 U.S.C.App. §§ 1-40 (1958).
. The term “enemy” is defined in part as “any individual, partnership, or other body of individuals, of any nationality, resident within the territory * * * of any nation with which the United States is at war * * 40 Stat. 411 (1917), as amended, 50 U.S.C.App. § 2 (a) (1958).