Constitucional

193 F.Supp. 375 (Cite as: 193 F.Supp. 375) United States District Court S.D. New York. BANCO NACIONAL DE CUBA, Plaintiff, v. Peter L. F. SABBATINO as Receiver, and F. Shelton Parr, William F. Prescott, Emet Whitlock, Lawrence H. Dixon, H. Bartow Farr, Elizabeth C. Prescott, Fabio Freyre and Helen G. Downs, copartners doing business as Farr, Whitlock & Co., Defendants. March 31, 1961.

PageAction by financial agent of Cuban government against purchaser of sugar from a Cuban corporation for a money judgment for alleged conversion of bills of lading and proceeds from sale of sugar of a Cuban corporation whose property had been expropriated. The District Court, Dimock, J., held that decree of Cuban government nationalizing Cuban enterprises in which United States 'physical or corporatepersons' held a majority interest in retaliation for acts of United States government and unconnected with subsequent use of the property nationalized and without any reasonable basis for classifying United States nationals separately from all other nationals and without payments of adequate compensation violated international law and United States federal district court would not enforce suchdecree, and Cuban corporation whose property had been expropriated under the decree was the owner of sugar. Complaint dismissed. West Headnotes Action by financial agent of Cuban government against purchaser of a Cuban corporation whose property had been expropriated under a nationalization decree seeking a money judgment against purchaser for alleged conversion of bills of lading for sale of sugarand sales proceeds was an action in personam and federal court had jurisdiction to entertain the action while a state action in rem or quasi in rem was simultaneously going on in New York state in which a temporary receiver had been appointed for assets of Cuban corporation located in New York. Civil Practice Act N.Y. § 977-b. When a state court action and a federal court action are both in rem orquasi in rem and involve same property, court first perfecting its jurisdiction over property may maintain and exercise that jurisdiction to the exclusion of the other. Decree of Cuban government nationalizing Cuban enterprises in which United States "physical or corporate persons" held a majority interest in retaliation for acts of United States government and unconnected with subsequent use ofproperty nationalized and without any reasonable basis for classifying United States nationals separately from all other nationals and without payment of adequate compensation violated international law, and United States federal district court would not enforce such decree, and Cuban corporation whose property had been expropriated under decree was owner of sugar sold by financial agent of Cubangovernment and agent could not recover the sales proceeds. U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, § 8, cl. 10; Sugar Act of 1948, § § 1 et seq., 408 as amended 7 U.S.C.A. § § 1100 et seq., 1158. Federal court could not refuse enforcement of Cuban nationalization decree because it violated public policy of the forum. Full faith and credit does not extend to an act of a country which is in violation of internationallaw. Courts of this country have obligation to respect and enforce international law not only by virtue of this country's status and membership in the community of nations but also because international law is a part of the law of the United States. U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, § 8, cl. 10. DIMOCK, District Judge. Copr. © West 2003 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works

193 F.Supp. 375 (Cite as: 193F.Supp. 375)

Page

There are six motions before me in this complicated commercial litigation having its genesis in the Cuban nationalization situation. The action centers about title to a sugar shipment which plaintiff, the financial agent of the Cuban government, asserts by reason of expropriation of the property of Compania Azucarera Vertientes-Camaguey, hereinafter C.A.V., a Cuban...