676, 684, 19 L. ed. 1040, 1043; Williams | 755; Floyd Acceptances (Pierce V. v. Vreeland, 156 C. C. A. 632, 244 Fed. United States) 7 Wall. 666, 677, 19 L. ed. 350; Williamson v. Berry, 8 How. 495, 169, 174; Hunter v. United States, 5 Pet. 12 L. ed. 1170; Daviess County v. Dick- 173, 186, 8 L. ed. 86, 91; Miller v. Kaliinson, 117 U. S. 657, 29 L. ed. 1026, 6 werke Aschersleben Aktien-Gesellschaft Sup. Ct. Rep. 897; Doon v. Cummins, 142 (C. C. A. 2d) 283 Fed. 746; American U. S. 366, 376, 35 L. ed. 1044, 1048, 12 Exch. Nat. Bank v. Garvan (C. C. A. 2d) Sup. Ct. Rep. 220; Norton v. Shelby 273 Fed. 43; Garvan v. Commercial County, 118 U. S. 425, 451, 30 L. ed. 178, Trust Co. (D. C.) 275 Fed. 841; Stöhr v. 189, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1121; Kelley v. Mil- Wallace (D. C.) 269 Fed. 827; Little v. an, 127 U. S. 139, 150, 32 L. ed. 77, 82, Barreme, 2 Cranch, 170, 2 L. ed. 243; 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1101; St. James Church Kahn v. Garvan (D. C.) 263 Fed. 909; v. Church of Redeemer, 45 Barb. 356, Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 120, 18 31 How. Pr. 381. L. ed. 281, 295; 3 Story, Eq. Jur. § 446; Pom. Eq. Jur. vol. 1, § 958, vol. 3, §§ 1077, 1079; 1 Perry, Trusts, § 207; San Diego v. San Diego & L. A. R. Co. 44 Cal. 106; St. James Church v. Church of Redeemer, 45 Barb. 356, 31 How. Pr. 381; Methodist Episcopal Soc. v. Perry, 51 Hun, 104, 4 N. Y. Supp. 723; Aberdeen R. Co. v. Blackie, 1 Macq. H. L. Cas. 461.

Even if the orders of Mr. Polk were lawful and valid, they did not authorize the sales or transfers of this property as made in this case.

Thatcher v. Powell, 6 Wheat. 119, 5 L. ed. 221; United States v. Jonas, 19 Wall. 598, 22 L. ed. 177; Steele v. United States, 113 U. S. 128, 28 L. ed. 952, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 396; Marsh v. Fulton County, 10 Wall. 676, 684, 19 L. ed. 1040, 1043; Williamson v. Berry, 8 How. 495, 12 L. ed. 1170; Doon v. Cummins, 142 U. S. 366, 376, 35 L. ed. 1044, 1048, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 220; Daviess County v. Dickinson, 117 U. S. 657, 29 L. ed. 1026, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 897.

The sales and assignments to appellee were illegal and void, as being in violation of § 41 of the Criminal Code of the United States and of those principles of law and equity which forbid a public officer or fiduciary making sale of trust property in his custody, to himself or to a corporation of which he is the head.

Downs v. Rickards, 4 Del. Ch. 416; Wormley v. Wormley, 8 Wheat. 421, 5 L. ed. 651; Michoud v. Girod, 4 How. 502, 11 L. ed. 1076; Stephen v. Beall, 22 Wall. 329, 340, 22 L. ed. 786, 788; United | States v. Carter, 217 U. S. 286, 308, 54 L. ed. 769, 776, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 515, 19 Ann. Cas. 594; Magruder v. Drury, 235 U. S. 106, 120, 59 L. ed. 151, 156, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 77; Jackson v. Smith, 254 U. S. 586, 65 L. ed. 418, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 200; Prosser v. Finn, 208 U. S. 67, 52 L. ed. 392, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 225; Waskey v. Hammer, 223 U. S. 85, 56 L. ed. 359, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 187; Ewert v. Bluejacket, 259 U. S. 129, 66 L. ed. 858, 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 442; United States v. San Jacinto Tin Co. 125 U. S. 274, 307, 31 L. ed. 748, 759, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 850; Pine River Logging & Improv. Co. v. United States, 186 U. S. 279, 291, 46 L. ed. 1164, 1170, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 920; United States v. Alexander, 110 U. S. 325, 28 L. ed. 166, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 99; Humboldt Twp. v. Long, 92 U. S. 642, 648, 23 L. ed. 752,

Assuming, but not admitting, that private sales were lawfully authorized, the sales as made and conducted by the Alien Property Custodian were illegal and void, and conferred no title upon the purchaser.

Wormley v. Wormley, 8 Wheat. 421, 5 L. ed. 651; Lamar v. Micou, 112 U. S. 452, 28 L. ed. 751, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 221; Melick v. Voorhees, 24 N. J. Eq. 305; Hill v. Shoemaker, 1 McArth. 305; Hoppes v. Cheek, 21 Ark. 585; Beall v. Dingman, 227 Ill. 294, 81 N. E. 366; 2 Perry, Trusts, 5th ed. §§ 770, 781; McCullough v. McCullough, 44 N. J. Eq. 313, 14 Atl. 123; Fowler v. Colt, 25 N. J. Eq. 202; Salisbury v. Colt, 27 N. J. Eq. 492; 1 Perry, Trusts & Trustees, § 463; Thatcher v. Powell, 6 Wheat. 119, 5 L. ed. 221; Cocks v. Izard, 7 Wall. 559, 19 L. ed. 275; Slater v. Maxwell, 6 Wall. 268, 18 L. ed. 796; Smith v. Ayer, 101 U. S. 320, 327, 25 L. ed. 955, 958; 2 Perry, Trusts, 5th ed. § 781; Ord v. Noel, 5 Madd. Ch. 440, 56 Eng. Reprint, 963; Taylor v. Tabrum, 6 Simons, 281, 58 Eng. Reprint, 599; Connoly v. Parsons, 3 Ves. Jr. 625, note, 30 Eng. Reprint, 1188, note; Mortlock v. Buller, 10 Ves. Jr. 309, 32 Eng. Reprint, 863; Johnson v. Dorsey, 7 Gill, 269; Hintze v. Stingel, 1 Md. Ch. 283; Penny v. Cook, 19 Iowa, 538; Nicholls v. Peak, 12 N. J. Eq. 69; 3 Pom. Eq. Jur. § 1067; Melick v. Voorhees, 24 N. J. Eq. 305; Green v. Green, 23 Wall. 486, 490, 23 L. ed. 75, 77; Union P. R. Co. v. Durant, 95 U. S. 576, 24 L. ed. 391; Lamar v. Micou, 112 U. S. 452, 465, 28 L. ed. 751, 756, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 221; Wadsworth v. Adams, 138 U. S. 380, 34 L. ed. 984, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep.

Pettibone v. United States, 148 U. S. 203, 37 L. ed. 422, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 542; Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co. v. United States, 226 U. S. 20, 49, 57 L. ed. 107, 117, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 9; W. W. Montague & Co. v. Lowry, 193 Ú. S. 38, 48 L. ed. 608, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 307; Straus v. American Publishers' Asso. 231 U. S. 222, 234, 58 L. ed. 192, 199, L.R.A.1915A, 1099, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 84, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 369; Blount Mfg. Co. v. Yale & T. Mfg. Co. 166 Fed. 562; National Harrow Co. v. Hench, 39 L.R.A. 299, 27 C. C. A. 349, 55 U. S. App. 53, 83 Fed. 38; Thomsen v. Cayser, 243 U. S. 66, 86, 61 L. ed. 597, 606, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 353, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 322.

303; Benjamin, Sales, § 1; Williamson v. | 461; Lindeke v. Associates Realty Co. 77 Berry, 8 How. 495, 543, 12 L. ed. 1170, C. Č. A. 56, 146 Fed. 630; Mid-Northern 1190; Five Per Cent Cases, 110 U. S. 475, | Oil Co. v. Walker, 268 U. S. 45, 69 L. ed. 28 L. ed. 198, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 210; Oliver 841, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 440; Mason v. v. Court, 8 Price, 165, 146 Eng. Reprint, United States, 260 U. S. 545, 553, 67 1166; Hill v. Shoemaker, 1 McArth. 305. L. ed. 396, 399, 43 Sup. Ct. Rep. 200; The transactions of alleged sales and Howard v. Harris, 8 Allen, 297; Munich assignments of the patents and other Reinsurance Co. v. First Reinsurance Co. properties involved in this suit were 6 F. (2d) 742; United States v. Russell, illegal and void in that the same were 13 Wall. 623, 20 L. ed. 474; United induced, brought about, and accomp- States v. Great Falls Mfg. Co. 112 U. S. lished in pursuance, and as a result, of 654, 656, 28 L. ed. 849, 850, 5 Sup. Ct. an unlawful scheme or conspiracy. Rep. 306; United States v. Lynah, 188 U. S. 445, 464, 465, 47 L. ed. 539, 546, 547, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 349; United States Trust Co. v. Miller, 262 U. S. 58, 67 L. ed. 862, 43 Sup. Ct. Rep. 489; Ahrenfeldt v. Miller, 262 U. S. 60, 67 L. ed. 863, 43 Sup. Ct. Rep. 490; Lange v. Wingrave (D. C.) 295 Fed. 565; Junkers v. Chemical Foundation (D. C.) 287 Fed. 597; Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U. S. 470, 48 L. ed. 525, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 349; Union Bridge Co. v. United States, 204 U. S. 364, 380-383, 51 L. ed. 523, 531, 532, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 367; United States v. Grimaud, 220 U. S. 506, 516-521, 55 L. ed. 563, 567-569, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 480; Intermountain Rate Cases (United States v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co.) 234 U. S. 476, 486-489, 58 L. ed. 1408, 1422, 1423, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 986; Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission, 236 U. S. 230, 246, 247, 59 L. ed. 552, 560, 561, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 387, Ann. Cas. 1916C, 296; First Nat. Bank v. Fellows, 244 U. S. 416, 427, 61 L. ed. 1233, 1240, L.R.A.1918C, 283, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 734, Ann. Cas. 1918D, 1169; Selective Draft Law Cases (Arver v. United States) 245 U. S. 366, 389, 62 L. ed. 352, 357, L.R.A. 1918C, 361, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 159, Ann. Cas. 1918B, 856; Clark v. Nash, 198 U. S. 4 Ann. Cas. 1171; Strickley v. Highland 361, 49 L. ed. 1085, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 676, Boy Gold Min. Co. 200 U. S. 527, 50 L. ed. 581, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 301, 4 Ann. Cas. 1174; Mt. Vernon-Woodberry Cotton Duck Co. v. Alabama Interstate Power

The court erred in the taxing of the costs against the United States.

Pine River Logging & Improv. Co. v. United States, 186 U. S. 279, 296, 46 L. ed. 1164, 1172, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 920; United States v. North American Transp. & Trading Co. 253 U. S. 330, 336, 64 L. ed. 935, 938, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 518; Stanley v. Schwalby, 162 U. S. 255, 272, 40 L. ed. 960, 966, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 754; Reeside v. Walker, 11 How. 272, 289, 13 L. ed. 693, 700; United States v. McLemore, 4 How. 286, 288, 11 L. ed. 977, 978.

Mr. John W. Davis argued the cause, and, with Messrs. Moorfield Storey, Joseph H. Choate, Jr., William G. Ma: haffy, and Seiforde M. Stellwagen, filed a brief for appellee:

The Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended, gave to the President the power to authorize, and to the Alien Property Custodian acting under his supervision and direction the power to consummate, the sales of patents and other property involved in this suit.

Levinson v. United States, 258 U. S. 198, 66 L. ed. 563, 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 275; Koppel Industrial Car & Equipment Co. V. Orenstein & K. Aktiengesellschaft (C. C. A. 2d) 289 Fed. 450; United States v. Pfitsch, 256 U. S. 547, 65 L. ed. 1084, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 569; Given v. Hilton, 95 U. S. 591, 598, 24 L. ed. 458,

Co. 240 U. S. 30, 60 L. ed. 507, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 234; Block v. Hirsh, 256 U. S. 135, 155, 65 L ed. 865, 870, 16 A.L.R. 165, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 458.

There was no violation of § 41 of the United States Criminal Code.

Union P. R. Co. v. Wyler, 158 U. S. 285, 39 L. ed. 983, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 877; Wharton, Crim. Proc. 10th ed. 1839; 1 Bishop, Crim. Law, 9th ed. p. 177.

The Trading with the Enemy Act, being a complete code of the rules intended to govern the disposition of enemy property, superseded, as to all transactions

governed thereby, any conflicting provisions of previous statutes.

United States v. Yuginovich, 256 U. S. 450, 65 L. ed. 1043, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 551; United States ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Dela- | ware & H. Co. 213 U. S. 366, 53 L. ed. 836, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 527; United States v. Morrison, 240 U. S. 192, 60 L. ed. 599, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 326; Brown v. Duchesne, 19 How. 183, 15 L ed. 595; Miller v. United States (Page v. United States) 11 Wall. 268, 20 L. ed. 135; Keppelmann v. Keppelmann, 91 N. J. Eq. 67, 108 Atl. 432; Miller v. Kaliwerke Aschersleben Aktien-Gesellschaft (C. C. A. 2d) 283 Fed. 746; Garvan v. Marconi Wireless Teleg. Co. (D. C.) 275 Fed. 486; Gardanier v. Celada, 24 Ariz. 185, 207 Pac. 875; Dakota Cent. Teleph. Co. v. South Dakota, 250 U. S. 163, 63 L. ed. 910, 4 A.L.R. 1623, P.U.R.1919D, 717, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 507; Commercial Cable Co. v. Burleson (D. C.) 255 Fed. 99; Dexter & Carpenter v. United States (D. C.) 275 Fed. 566; Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U. S. 389, 61 L. ed. 791, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 387; Maresca v. United States (C. C. A. 2d) | 277 Fed. 727; Rogers v. Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co. 33 C. C. A. 517, 62 U. S. App. 49, 697, 91 Fed. 299; United States v. Tynen, 11 Wall. 88, 20 L. ed. 153; Columbia Brewing Co. v. Miller (C. C. A. 5th) 281 Fed. 290.

Section 7 (e) of the Trading with the Enemy Act freed the President and those acting under his supervision and direction from the restraint of this statute, among other statutes, passed when only the normal affairs of the nation were in contemplation.

Miller v. United States (Page v. United States) 11 Wall. 268, 20 L. ed. 135; Martin v. Mott, 12 Wheat. 19, 29-32, 6 L. ed. 537, 540, 541; Commercial Trust Co. v. Miller, 262 U. S. 51, 53, 67 L. ed. 858, 860, 43 Sup. Ct. Rep. 486; American Exch. Nat. Bank v. Garvan (C. C. A. 2d) 273 Fed. 48, affirmed in 260 U. S. 706, 67 L. ed. 474, 43 Sup. Ct. Rep. 165; Central Union Trust Co. v. Garvan, 254 U. S. 554, 568, 569, 65 L. ed. 403, 409, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 214; Henkels v. Miller (C. C. A. 2d) 4 F. (2d) 988.

The transactions in question were within § 41 of the Federal Criminal Code. Bishop, Statutory Crimes, 3d ed. § 235; Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U. S. 197, 47 L. ed. 1016, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 787, 12 Am. Crim. Rep. 465; Barrett v. Van Pelt, 268 U. S. 85, 69 L. ed. 857, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 437; United States v. Morrison, 240 U. S. 192, 60 L. ed. 599, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 326; Baender

v. Barnett, 255 U. S. 224, 65 L. ed. 597, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 271; Maresca v. United States (C. C. A. 2d) 277 Fed. 727, certiorari denied in 257 U. S. 657, 66 L. ed. 420, 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 183; Wachtel v. A. R. Mosler & Co. 195 App. Div. 240, 186 N. Y. Supp. 449, affirmed in 233 N. Y. 588, 135 N. E. 929; Behn, M. & Co. v. Miller, 266 U. S. 457, 465, 69 L. ed. 374, 384, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 165; Davis v. O'Hara, 266 U. S. 314, 69 L. ed. 303, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 104.

Even if 41 had been violated, the transactions in suit would stand.

Harris v. Runnels, 12 How. 79, 13 L. ed. 901; Gold-Min. Co. v. Rocky Mountain Nat. Bank, 96 U. S. 640, 24 L. ed. 648, 1 Mor. Min. Rep. 432; Union Nat. Bank v. Matthews, 98 U. S. 621, 25 L. ed. 188; Adams Exp. Co. v. Darden (C. C. A. 6th) 286 Fed. 61; Dunlop v. Mercer, 86 C. C. A. 435, 156 Fed. 555; Hanover Nat. Bank v. First Nat. Bank, 48 C. C. A. 482, 109 Fed. 426; Findlay v. Pertz, 29 L.R.A. 188, 13 C. C. A. 559, 31 U. S. App. 340, 66 Fed. 427; Westerlund v. Black Bear Min. Co. 121 C. C. A. 627, 203 Fed. 599; St. Louis, V. & T. H. R. Co. v. Terre Haute & I. R. Co. 145 U. S. 393, 36 L. ed. 738, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 953; Stutsman v. Olinda Land Co. (D. C.) 231 Fed. 525; Guffey-Gillespie Oil Co. v. Wright (C. C. A. 8th) 281 Fed. 787.

There was no violation of any principle of law or equity.

Hammond v. Hopkins, 143 U. S. 224, 251, 36 L. ed. 134, 145, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 418; Hoyt v. Latham, 143 U. S. 553, 566, 36 L. ed. 259, 264, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 568; Twin-Lick Oil Co. v. Marbury, 91 U. S. 587, 589, 23 L. ed. 328, 330, 3 Mor. Min. Rep. 688; Morse v. Hill, 136 Mass. 60; Warren v. Pazolt, 203 Mass. 328, 89 N. E. 381; Ungrich v. Ungrich, 141 App. Div. 491, 126 N. Y. Supp. 419, affirmed in 207 N. Y. 662, 100 N. E. 1134; Jackson ex dem. Colden v. Walsh, 14 Johns. 407; Shelby v. Creighton, 65 Neb. 485, 101 Am. St. Rep. 630, 91 N. W. 369; Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. v. Carson, 151 Ill. 444, 38 N. E. 140; Leathers v. Janney, 41 La. Ann. 1120, 6 L.R.A. 661, 6 So. 884; Fudickar v. East Riverside Irrig. Dist. 109 Cal. 38, 41 Pac. 1024.

The contentions of the government, that the several executive orders under which the transaction in suit took place were void, are unfounded.

Stoehr v. Wallace, 255 U. S. 239, 244, 245, 65 L. ed. 604, 611, 612, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 293; Commercial Trust Co. v. Miller, 262 U. S. 51, 53, 67 L. ed. 858, 860, 43 Sup. Ct. Rep. 486; Burnap v. United

States, 252 U. S. 512, 514, 515, 64 L. ed. | 692, 694, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 374; McGrath v. United States (C. C. A. 2d) 275 Fed. 300; Dexter & Carpenter v. United States (D. C.) 275 Fed. 566; Russell Motor Car Co. v. United States, 261 U. S. 514, 523, 67 L. ed. 778, 784, 43 Sup. Ct. Rep. 428; Levinson v. United States, 258 U. S. 198, 66 L. ed. 563, 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 275; Ross v. Day, 232 U. S. 110, 58 L. ed. 528, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 233; 11 C. J. p. 372; Smith v. Havens Relief Fund Soc. 44 Misc. 613, 90 N. Y. Supp. 168, affirmed in 118 App. Div. 678, 103 N. Y. Supp. 770, which is affirmed in 190 N. Y. 557, 83 N. E. 1132; Burrill v. Boardman, 43 N. Y. 254, 3 Am. Rep. 694; Re Frasch, 125 Misc. 381, 211 N. Y. Supp. 635.

The objection to the sales in suit on the ground of an alleged illegal combination of bidders is untenable.

Kearney v. Taylor, 15 How. 494, 14 L. ed. 787; Hyer v. Richmond Traction Co. 168 U. S. 471, 476, 42 L. ed. 547, 548, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 114; McMullen v. Hoffman, 174 U. S. 639, 652, 43 L. ed. 1117, 1122, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 839; Kearney v. Taylor, 15 How. 494, 518, 14 L. ed. 787, 797; Fairy v. Kennedy, 68 S. C. 250, 47 S. E. 138.

Mr. Justice Butler delivered the opinion of the court:

Suit was brought by the United States in the district court for Delaware to set aside sales made by it to the Chemical Foundation of a number of patents, copyrights, trademarks, and other similar properties-which for brevity will be referred to as "patents"-seized pursuant to the Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, chap. 106, 40 Stat. at L. 411, as amended by the Act of March 28, 1918, chap. 28, 40 Stat. at L. 460, Comp. Stat. § 3115ff, Fed. Stat. Anno. Supp. 1918, p. 863, and the Act of November 4, 1918, chap. 201, 40 Stat. at L. 1020, and other acts. The complaint alleges that a number of domestic manufacturers as a result of war conditions had been able to combine and monopolize certain chemical industries in this country; and, fearing that at the end of the war German competition would destroy the monopoly, they conspired to bring about transfers and sales of the patents at nominal prices to themselves or to a corporation controlled by them; that the patents so obtained would control the industries in question and perpetuate the cured through the fraudulent deception monopoly, and that the sales were proof the President, the Alien Property Custodian, and other officials. [5] The answer denies conspiracy and fraud and asserts that the transfers were made in good faith and pursuant to law and that they are valid. which much evidence was taken. There was a trial at The district court dismissed the complaint (294 Fed. 300), and its decree was affirmed by the circuit court of appeals (5 F. (2d) 191). Both courts found that no unlawful scheme, combination or conspiracy was shown, and that there was no deception or fraud. States took an appeal under § 241, The United Judicial Code, and has applied for a writ of certiorari under § 240. The decree of the circuit court of appeals was entered The district court limited its decree to of the Act of February 13, 1925, amendMarch 26, 1925, prior to the taking effect the recovery of moneys advanced by ap-ing the Judicial Code, chap. 229, 43 Stat. pellee under its order, and did not order at L. 936, Fed. Stat. Anno. Supp. 1925, the taxation of the costs of the cause p. 84. Since this is not a case in which against the United States of America. the decree of that court is made final by Newton v. Consolidated Gas Co. 265 § 128, the United States had the right U. S. 78, 83, 68 L. ed. 909, 910, 44 Sup. of appeal. The application for certiorari Ct. Rep. 481.

Even if the ratifying order directly ratified only those transactions to which the government would limit it, it would still operate as a complete ratification of the sales of the patents. Ratification cannot be partial. Anything which constitutes a ratification of any part of a transaction constitutes a ratification of the whole.

Gaines v. Miller, 111 U. S. 395, 398, 28 L. ed. 466, 467, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 426; Rader v. Maddox, 150 U. S. 128, 131, 37 L. ed. 1025, 1027, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 46; Finley v. New Brunswick F. Ins. Co. (C. C.) 193 Fed. 197; Mechem, Agency, § 410, p. 301; Huffcut, Agency, 2d ed. p. 50; 2 C. J. 481-484; Crown Die & Tool Co. v. Nye Tool & Mach. Works, 261 U. S. 24, 67 L. ed. 516, 43 Sup. Ct. Rep.

254.

Mr. James A. Beha filed a brief, as amicus curiæ, for Friederich Schott.

is therefore denied.

The chemical industries in question are closely related to the production of Messrs. Hoke Smith and A. W. Laf-explosives, gases, and other things ferty filed a brief, as amici curiæ, for directly used in waging war as well as to Karl Imhoff. the production of dyestuffs and medicines

138

essential to the welfare of the people. | the par value of $100 each; 4,000 shares At the outbreak of the war many neces- constitute nonvoting preferred stock, the sary medicines and other substances as holders of which are entitled to a cumuwell as most of the dyestuffs used in this lative dividend of 6 per centum per country were imported from Germany or annum, and 1,000 shares constitute the were manufactured under patents owned common stock, the holders of which are by enemy Germans. The amount of such entitled to dividends not exceeding 6 per things here produced was small. Im- centum per annum after dividends on portations were hindered by the blockade the preferred stock have been provided and ceased when this country entered for. The preferred stock is subject to rethe war. To meet the demand numerous demption at par plus [7] accumulated plants were developed and by 1919 dividends, if any, and after such rechemicals, dyestuffs, medicines, and the demption net earnings not needed for like, were being produced here in large working capital "shall be used and dequantities. A number of associations of voted to the development and advancemanufacturers were formed for the ad- ment of chemistry and allied sciences, vancement of such industries; they in- in the useful arts and manufactures cluded in their membership the pro- in the United States, in such manner ducers of nearly all the dyestuffs and like as the board of directors may deterchemicals made in this country. Mr. A. mine." The holders of the common Mitchell Palmer was the Alien Property stock have all the voting power. The Custodian until he was [6] appointed certificate provides that, without the Attorney General, March 4, 1919. In or- approval of the board of directors, der to protect the United States against stockholders may not sell any of enemy and foreign control of its chemi- their stock. cal industries and to stimulate production here, he favored the seizure and sale of the patents in question. To that end a number of conferences were held between his representatives and those of the industries. The plan that was carried into effect was formulated under his direction.

The board of directors consists of three members. The executive officers are president, vice president, and a secretary and treasurer. The president and vice president are required to serve without pay. The shares of the Foundation were subscribed by those interested in the chemical and dye industries. But a voting trust agreement was made, pursuant to which all common stock was deposited with, and all voting power was vested in, five trustees. Directors and officers were chosen March 8, 1919. Francis P. Garvan, Douglas I. McKay and George J. Corbett were made directors and constituted the board. Mr. Garvan, then Alien Property Custodian, was elected president. Mr. McKay was elected vice president, and Mr. Corbett secretary and treasurer. Otto T. Bannard and four others were made voting trustees. All the directors, officers and voting trustees were chosen by or in accordance with the direction of Mr. Palmer, given while he was Custodian.

In February, 1919, the Chemical Foundation was incorporated under the laws of Delaware. The certificate of incorporation discloses that it was created and empowered to purchase enemy-owned patents seized by the Custodian and to hold the "property and rights so acquired in a fiduciary capacity for the Americanization of such industries as may be affected thereby, for the exclusion or elimination of alien interests hostile or detrimental to the said industries, and for the advancement of chemical and allied science and industry in the United States;" to grant to the United States nonexclusive licenses to make, use, and sell the inventions covered by the The President, by executive order patents, and also to grant like licenses, December 3, 1918, declared: "I hereby on equal terms, and without advantage vest in Frank L. Polk all power and auas between licensees, to American citi-thority conferred upon the President by zens and corporations under control of the provisions of § 12" of the Trading American citizens. The board of directors is authorized to prescribe the terms and conditions of such licenses. It may refuse to issue any license or may revoke any license granted by it. The corporation is required to enforce its rights and to protect the rights of its licensees. The authorized capital stock is $500,000 consisting of 5,000 shares of

with the Enemy Act as amended. Mr. Polk was then Counselor for the Department of State, but was not so described in the order. He made two orders dated respectively February 26, 1919 and April 5, 1919, to authorize the Custodian to sell at private sale to the Foundation without advertisement at such places and upon such terms and conditions as to the