Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-txr5j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-17T00:27:51.444Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

In Re Braunstein's Estate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2017

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Judicial Decisions Involving Questions of International Law
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1953

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Citing In re Adler’s Estate, 197 Misc. 104, 93 N. Y. S. (2d) 416 (Surr. Kings Cty., 1949).

Involving questions as to the authority of a Netherlands consul to act for an Indonesian in an estate matter, see In re Ameyund, 108 N. Y. 8. (2d) 326 (Surr. Kings Cty., Nov. 23, 1951).

2 Apparently a practice now widely followed by courts dealing with estates in which persons behind the “Iron Curtain” are interested.

3 Plaintiffs sued too late on the facts of the case, since the court ruled that the statute of limitations was not suspended by the physical impossibility of commercial intercourse with the Netherlands after the German invasion in May, 1940, and prior to the entry of the United States into the war; nor did the suspension last after the German surrender and prior to the formal termination of a state of war with Germany.

4 Plaintiffs, though nationals of an Allied country, were to be regarded as enemy aliens and thus barred from suing in Oregon during the war, because of their residence in enemy-occupied territory.

In Oerlikon Machine Tool Works v. U. S., 102 F. Supp. 417 (Ct. Cls., Feb. 5, 1952), the statute of limitations was held to be tolled in favor of a Swiss corporation which had lacked capacity to sue during the war because it had been placed on the Proclaimed List as an enemy.