TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ex Parte Colonna

Ex Parte Don Ascanio Colonna

Ex Parte Colonna, 314 U.S. 510 (1942)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
January 5, 1942
Judges
Roberts
Citations
314 U.S. 51062 S. Ct. 37386 L. Ed. 3791942 U.S. LEXIS 1212

Opinion — Per Curiam

Per Curiam:

Petitioner, the Royal Italian Ambassador, seeks leave to file in this Court a petition for writs of prohibition and mandamus, directed to the United States District Court *511 for the District of New Jersey. The basis of this application is petitioner’s allegation that a vessel and its cargo of oil, the subject of litigation in the District Court and now in its possession, are the property of the Italian Government and are entitled to the benefit of Italy’s sovereign immunity from suit.

After the motion was filed, there occurred on December 11, 1941, the declaration that the United States is at war with Italy. Section 2 (b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act, 40 Stat. 411 , defines “enemy” to include the government of any nation with which the United States is at war. Section 7 (b) contains the following provision, 40 Stat. at 417:

“Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to authorize the prosecution of any suit or action at law or in equity in any court within the United States by an enemy or ally of enemy prior to the end of the war, except as provided in section ten hereof” [which relates to patent, trademark and copyright suits] “. . .

And -provided further, That an enemy or ally of enemy may defend by counsel any suit in equity or action at law which may be brought against him.”

This provision was inserted in the Act in the light of the principle, recognized by Congress and by this Court, that war suspends the right of enemy plaintiffs to prosecute actions in our courts. See S. Repts. Nos. 111 and 113, pp. 21, 24, 65th Cong., 1st Sess.;

Caperton v. Bowyer, 14 Wall. 216, 236 ;

Hanger v. Abbott, 6 Wall. 532, 536-37, 539 ;

Masterson v. Howard, 18 Wall. 99, 105 ;

Porter v. Freudenberg, [1915] 1 K. B. 857, 866-80. In view of the statute and the opinions in the cases cited, the application will not be entertained. Cf.

Rothbarth v. Herzfeld, 179 App. Div. 865, 867-69 , 167 N. Y. S. 199, affirmed 223 N. Y. 578 , 119 N. E. 1075 .

Motion for leave to file denied.

Mr. Justice Roberts took no part in the decision of this application.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 45 cases

View all citing references →
1942: 141943: 71944: 11945: 21947: 21948: 21949: 11950: 11951: 21952: 21953: 11954: 21957: 11958: 11960: 11961: 11964: 11981: 11982: 12001: 119422026peak 1942 · 14

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Farbenfabriken Bayer A. G. v. Sterling Drug, Inc.251 F.2d 300 (3d Cir. 1958)
  2. Kunstsammlungen Zu Weimar v. Elicofon536 F. Supp. 829 (E.D.N.Y. 1981)
  3. Farbenfabriken Bayer, A. G. v. Sterling Drug Inc.197 F. Supp. 613 (D.N.J. 1961)
  4. Osbourne v. United States164 F.2d 767 (2d Cir. 1947)
  5. Hayashi v. Lorenz271 P.2d 18 (Cal. 1954)
  6. Pang-Tsu Mow v. Republic of China (Two Cases)201 F.2d 195 (D.C. Cir. 1953)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Hanger v. Abbott, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 532 (1868) 128
Rothbarth v. Herzfeld, 179 A.D. 865 (1917) 26
Caperton v. Bowyer, 81 U.S. (14 Wall.) 216 (1872) 22
Masterson v. Howard, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 99 (1873) 18

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list