Erdreich vs. Zimmerman, 176 NYS. 762, 107 Misc. Rep. 508; reversed in 179 NYS. 829; 190 App. Div. 443. Fritz Schulz vs. Raimes & Co. 166 NYS. 567, 100 Misc. Rep. 697; affirming 164 NYS. 454, 99 Misc. Rep. 626; Goldmuntz vs. Spitzel, 170 NYS. 467; Guinnes et al. vs. Phoenix Assur. Co. of London, Ltd., 188 NYS. 137, 196 App. Div. 495; Hughes vs. Techt, 176 NYS. 356, 106 Misc. Rep. 524; affirmed in 177 NYS. 420, which was affirmed in Techt vs. Hughes, 188 App. Div. 743 and the latter in 229 NY. 222; Hungarian Credit Bank vs. Titus, 169 NYS. 926, 175 App. Div. 504; 182 App. Div. 826; In Re. Schaeffer Estate, 110 Misc. Rep. 628; 180 NYS. 638; 182 NYS. 732; 112 Misc. Rep. 308; Insurance Co. of Penn. vs. Prussian Nat. Ins. Co, 184 NYS. 103, 112 Misc. Rep. 199; Kannengiesser vs. Israelowitz. 107 Misc. Rep. 349; 176 NYS. 535; Kuntsee Estate, 187 NYS. 245, 114 Misc. Rep. 694; affirmed 192 NYS. 933; Nord Deutsche Ins. Co. vs. Dudley Jr. et. al, 169 NYS. 303; affirmed in 169 NYS. 1106; Nord Deutsche Ins. Co. vs. Dudley et. al. 172 NYS. 154, 104 Misc. Rep. 365; Noble vs. Great Am. Ins. Co. 194 NYS. 60, 200 App. Div. 773; affirmed 235 NY. 589; Panne vs. Solar, 167 NYS. 901, 101 Misc. Rep. 693; Pommer Estate, 177 NYS. 746, 108 Misc. Rep. 491; Roecks Estate, 195 NYS. 505, 119 Misc. Rep. 190: affirmed 200 NYS. 917. Rothbarth vs. Herzfeld, 167 NYS. 189, 179 App. Div. 865, 223 NY. 578, reversing North Carolina Ohio Pennsylvania Texas Washington West Virginia order in 166 NYS. 744, 100 Misc. Rep. Rubber vs. Kalter, 172 NYS. 486; Vorhaus vs. City Nat. Securities Co., 167 Waldes vs. Basch, 179 NYS. 713, 109 Misc. Krachanake vs. Acme Mfg. Co. 175 N. C. 435, 95 S. E. 851. Hirlinger vs. Zanda, II O. App. 207. In Re. Greggs Estate, 266 Penn. St. 189, 109 Atl. 777; certiorari denied in 40 Sup. Ct. 396. Galveston H. & S. S. A. Ry. vs. Blankfield (Tex.), 211 S. W. 808; Ozbolt Lumbermen's Indemnity Exchange (Tex.), 204 S. W. 252. Heidner vs. St. Paul & Tacoma Lumber Barna vs. Gleason, C. & C. Co., (W. Va.) 98 S. E. 158. NOTES OF DECISIONS 1. Alien Citizens Domiciled in Enemy Country: Construing Section 2 (a) the court said, in Kahn vs. Garvan: It is within the power of "Congress under its war powers to declare the status of all citizens actually present in enemy territory, certainly in a statute like the Trading with the Enemy Act, because however blameless any share in hostile acts, their property, if reduced to possession where they reside, by hypothesis, falls within the power of the enemy government for such purposes as it may choose; and residents of Germany, although claiming American citizenship or claiming to be nonenemies, are by reason of such residence enemies within the meaning of the Act, regardless of their citizenship. Kahn vs. Garvan, 263 F. 909. International Rule. It has been the general doctrine that citizens domiciled in enemy territory, by the rules of international law take on the status of enemies. Kahn vs. Garvan, 263 F. 909: citing "The Francis", 9 Fed. Cases 673, No. 5034; affirmed in 8 Cranch 363, 3 L. Ed. 590; "The Venus", 8 Cranch 253, 3 L. Ed. 553; U. S. v. El Telegrafo, 25 Fed. Cases 1008, No. 13, 049 (semble); "The Venice", 2 Wall, 258, 17 L. Ed. 866. 2. Alien Enemy-Alien Friend. Realty Under New York Statute. Enemies Cannot Inherit In the primary meaning of the words, "Alien Friend" is the subject of a foreign state at peace with the United States; an "Alien Enemy" is a subject of a foreign state at war with the United States, which meaning must be taken to be the true one unless evidence is at hand that some other meaning was intended. The Trading with the Enemy Act does not invest alien enemies with a different status, but its definition of an enemy was "for the purposes of such trading and of this act," and for no other; held, that an American woman, wife of an Austrian subject, both residents of this country, was an enemy and, therefore, excluded from inheriting realty under the New York statute. Techt vs. Hughes, 229, N. Y. 222; 188 App. Div. 743, affirming 176 N. Y. S. 356; certiorari denied 254 U. S. 643, 41 Sup. Ct. 14. See note 8, this section, and note 75 under Section 9. QUERY-as this case was decided in 1920, what effect would the Act of Congress of Sept. 22, 1922 (42 U. S. St. L. p. 1021) preserving the American nationality of an American woman married to an alien have had on the mind of the court? Not nationality, but carrying on of business or residence in an enemy country, constitutes an alien enemy and an alien, subject of Germany, but resident in the United States, becomes an enemy on internment by the President under the provisions of US. RS. 4067, Section 7615, U. S. Comp. Statutes. Lutz vs. Van Haynegan Brokerage Co., 80 So. 72, 202 Ala. 234. 2. An Alien Enemy Is One With Whom the United States is at War. Taylor vs. Albion Lumber Co., 168 Pac. 347, 176 Cal. 347. 3. Alien Resident's Declaration of Intention to Become a Citizen Does Not Exempt Him From Being Restrained as an Enemy. The mere declaration of the intention to become a citizen of the United States, such declaration never having been carried into effect, does not confer citizenship upon the declarant or absolve him from allegiance to his native country, his declaration not being a renunciation of his allegiance but merely of his intention to do so at some future time; so, on the outbreak of war between this country and Austria-Hungary, the declarant being a native of the latter, though resident in the United States, becomes a resident alien who can be restrained or exported under Section 4067 R. S. by the President. Ex parte Graber 247, F. 882. NOTE: But he would not be an enemy, within the meaining of the ACT, unless proscribed or interned by the President. 4. Alien Resident in United States May Be Included as an Enemy by Proclamation, Whether Within or Without Jurisdiction. By virtue of Section 2 (c) the President could by proclamation include within the term named, persons who were residents within the jurisdiction, so that an enemy might be within or without the jurisdiction, and in one case could be served with process and in the other could not. Spiegelberg vs. Garvan, 260 F. 302. 5. Alien Enemy and Citizens' Ratification of Co-Partnership Agreement Inoperative. The ratification of an agreement made between German and American partners prior to the War to dissolve the copartnership in case of war between the two countries, the German partners to take assets in Germany and the American partners to take assets in the United States, each as his share in the co-partnership, being as held ineffective to convey the American assets to the American partner, would be the completion of a "contract, agreement or obligation" within the meaning of the statute, and, therefore, inoperative. vs. Garvan (C. C. A.) 278 F. 27; s. c. 270 F. 229. Vide: note 9 under Section 8. Mayer 6. Alien Enemy's Right to Inherit. Personal Property. Real Estate. Difference. "The decedent, before the war, a citizen of this country, was privileged under the laws of New York to make bequests of personal property and they would have been valid and enforceable, if he had died before the war. These rights are not abridged simply by the declaration of the war itself, because the settled policy of the government is to impair as little as possible the private right of citizens by national differences. (Citing, Sands vs. N. Y. Life Insurance Co., 50 N. Y. 626; Brown vs. United States, 8 Cranch 110, L. Ed. 504) "Nor did the fact that the bequest became operative during the war violate the Trading with the Enemy Act." (Citing, in Re. Killmarks Will., 188 Iowa 1378, 177N.W. 690; In Re. Greggs Estate, 266 Pa. 189, 109 Atl. 777) *********** "So far as devises of real estate are concerned, the statutes make provision, for it specifically says 'alien friends are empowered to take, hold, transmit and dispose of real property within the state in the same manner as native born citizens.' (Laws 1909c. 52 Consol. Laws c. 50 par. 10) and it has been held that therefore alien enemies are excluded." (Citing, Techt vs. Hughes, 229 N. Y. 222, 128 N. E. 185; certiorari denied 254 US. 643, 41 Sup. Ct. 14, 65 L.Ed. 454.)* In Re. Roeck's Estate, 195 N. Y. S. 505. ** "There is a difference with respect to the privileges granted aliens between those affecting real estate and those affecting personal property." (Citing, Meakings vs. Cromwell, 5 N. Y. 136; Beck vs. McGillis, 9 Barb. 35; Marks vs. |