United States v. Pink

315 U.S. 203 (1942) · Supreme Court of the United States · February 2, 1942 · No. No. 42

Summary

The Supreme Court held that the Litvinov Assignment transferred to the United States claims arising from the Soviet nationalization of Russian insurance companies, including assets located in New York. It concluded that federal foreign-relations authority and the international compact associated with recognition of the Soviet Union preempted conflicting New York policies and required enforcement of the assignment. The Court reversed the judgment dismissing the United States' action.

Holdings

  1. The Russian nationalization decree, as authoritatively interpreted by the Russian Commissariat for Justice, was intended to embrace the New York assets of First Russian Insurance Co.
  2. When a federal right depends on the interpretation of foreign law, the question is not exclusively for the state court; the Supreme Court may review or independently determine it.
  3. New York law and policies must yield when they conflict with the federal foreign-relations policy embodied in recognition of the Soviet Government and the Litvinov Assignment.
  4. Title to the funds vested in the Soviet Government as successor to First Russian Insurance Co., passed to the United States under the Litvinov Assignment, and entitled the United States to the property as against the Russian corporation and the foreign creditors involved in the case.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Russian nationalization decrees were intended under Russian law to reach the New York assets of First Russian Insurance Co.
  2. Whether the Supreme Court could independently determine foreign-law questions on which the United States' federal claim under the Litvinov Assignment depended.
  3. Whether New York law and public policy could prevent enforcement of the Litvinov Assignment and the federal foreign-relations policy embodied in the recognition of the Soviet Government.
  4. Whether the United States was entitled to the surplus funds as against the Russian corporation and foreign creditors whose claims did not arise from transactions with the New York branch.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (30)

  • United States v. Bank of New York & Trust Co., 296 U.S. 463 (1936)(followed)
  • United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324 (1937)(followed and applied)
  • Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States, 304 U.S. 126 (1938)(distinguished)
  • Stone v. Farmers' Bank of Kentucky, 174 U.S. 409 (1899)(followed)
  • Durant v. Essex County, 7 Wall. 107 (1869)(followed)
  • Hertz v. Woodman, 218 U.S. 205 (1910)(followed)
  • United States v. Ansonia Brass & Copper Co., 218 U.S. 452 (1910)(followed)
  • Ancient Egyptian Order v. Michaux, 279 U.S. 737 (1929)(followed)
  • Broad River Power Co. v. South Carolina, 281 U.S. 537 (1930)(followed)
  • Pierre v. Louisiana, 306 U.S. 354 (1939)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 30.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from US Supreme Court