Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. Alfred J. Jollon, New York City, of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Mr. Russell Hardy, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellant. Mr. Russell Hardy, Jr., Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for appellant. Mr. Chester C. Shore, Washington, D.C., with whom Messrs. Jack Wasserman and David Carliner, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellee.
Judges
  • Henry White Edgerton
  • Charles Fahy
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. Alfred J. Jollon, New York City, of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Mr. Russell Hardy, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellant. Mr. Russell Hardy, Jr., Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for appellant. Mr. Chester C. Shore, Washington, D.C., with whom Messrs. Jack Wasserman and David Carliner, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellee.
Judges
  • Henry White Edgerton
  • Charles Fahy
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Margot VON OPEL, Appellant, v. Fritz VON OPEL, Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant sued in the District of Columbia to enforce a judgment obtained against appellee in New York. It is not enforcible here as a money judgment, because appellee was not a resident of New York and was not personally served with process there. Stock certificates that had been vested by the Alien Property Custodian, and were in New York, are now in the District of Columbia. But vested property cannot be reached by attachment or execution. Von Opel v. Uebersee Finanz Korporation, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 230, 225 F.2d 530.

In declining to permit amendment of appellant's complaint, the District Court did not abuse its discretion.

Affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

VON OPEL v. VON OPEL
(Jun 19, 1958)