1 13 Dept. of State Bulletin 153 (1945); 39 AJ.I.L. Supp. 245 (1945).

2 22 U.S.C. §§ 1621-1643k (1964). Footnote by court. Other footnotes by court renumbered or omitted.

3 50 U.S.C. App. §§ 2001-2017p (1964). Footnote by court.

4 Aris Gloves, Inc. v. Re, Civil No. 929-67 (D.D.C., May 1, 1967); Aris Gloves Inc. v. Walsh, No. 20,984 (D.C. Cir., May 16, 1967); Aris Gloves, Inc. v. Re, Civil No. 929-67 (D.D.C., Sept. 8, 1967). Cited by court.

5 Plaintiff’s petition, in this case, seeks compensation for the value of its property taken in both Germany and Czechoslovakia. However, in its cross-motion for summary judgment, plaintiff completely fails to make reference to its Czechoslovakian claim. At oral argument, plaintiff’s counsel stated that Aris Gloves, at the moment, was seeking recovery only for its loss of property in East Germany. He conceded that the Czechoslovakian claim involved other and different issues from the German claim, and, consequently, the Czechoslovakian question would be handled separately in another action.

In the best interests of justice, we will consider plaintiff to have withdrawn its claim in this suit for compensation for loss of property in Czechoslovakia, rather than hold that such claim is waived and thereby lost. This decision will be without prejudice to the right of plaintiff to file another action in this court for the recovery of the value of its property located in Czechoslovakia. Footnote by court.

6 420 F.2d 1386 at 1387.

7 Ibid. 1391, quoting Juragua Iron Co. c. United States, 42 Ct. Cl. 99, 111-112; 2 A.J.I.L. 418 (1908).

8 Proclamation No. 2714, 61 Stat. 1048 (1947). Footnote by court.

9 420 F.2d 1386 at 1393.

10 61 Stat. 3157; T.I.A.S., No. 1655. Cited by court.

11 21 Ct. Cl. 340 (1886).