## Facts

- F. W. Vowinckel was born in the Kingdom of Prussia in 1861, was educated there, and was licensed to practice medicine in 1886.
- He immigrated to the United States in 1892 and became a bona fide resident of California, obtaining a California medical license the same year and practicing medicine and surgery there continuously.
- In 1898, he declared his intention to become a U.S. citizen and later applied for naturalization in January 1915; the application was not heard due to legal delays not attributable to him.
- In 1915, with lawful authority from the United States, Vowinckel traveled to Germany to improve his medical training, render medical aid, and visit his daughter, a Red Cross nurse.
- After arriving in Germany, he served during World War I as a Red Cross surgeon attached to the German army and rendered medical care in France to wounded and sick persons without regard to nationality.
- On October 6, 1917, the Alien Property Custodian vested property in the United States that was associated with Vowinckel, on the theory that he was an “enemy” within the meaning of the Trading with the Enemy Act.
- After the war, German authorities permitted Vowinckel to leave Germany in March 1919; under German law, he had ceased to be a German subject in 1900 because he had not resided in Germany since 1892.
- From locations outside Germany after the war, Vowinckel repeatedly sought permission to return to the United States, but in 1920 his visa request was refused on the ground that he was an alien enemy whose entry was barred.
- Vowinckel filed a complaint (bill) in federal district court seeking return of the property vested by the Custodian; the district court dismissed the complaint, and he appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Vowinckel was an “enemy” within the meaning of the Trading with the Enemy Act, so that the Alien Property Custodian could lawfully vest his U.S. property during World War I.
2. Whether Vowinckel’s service as a Red Cross surgeon attached to the German army gave him “enemy character” despite his long-term residence in California and lack of German nationality under German law.
3. Whether the Geneva Convention’s treatment of medical personnel informed the meaning of “enemy” for purposes of wartime property vesting under the Act.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal.
- The court held that Vowinckel had not become an “enemy” for purposes of the Trading with the Enemy Act.
- Because he lacked enemy status, the vesting of his property as enemy property was improper, and he could pursue recovery of that property.

## Legal Principles

- “Enemy” status for wartime property controls turns on legal status and connection to the enemy, including residence/domicile and allegiance, not merely physical presence abroad.
- A long-term U.S. resident who is not a national of the enemy state does not become an “enemy” simply because wartime conditions place him in enemy territory or in proximity to enemy forces.
- Medical personnel serving in a Red Cross capacity are treated as noncombatants under the Geneva Convention framework; humanitarian medical service attached to an army is not the same as membership in the armed forces “proper” for determining enemy character.
- Federal wartime seizure statutes should be construed consistently with applicable treaty obligations and the law of nations when determining whether a person fits within statutory enemy classifications.
- The Alien Property Custodian’s power to vest property depends on the property’s connection to a statutorily defined enemy; when that predicate fails, the owner may seek return of the vested property.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit concluded that Vowinckel—a long-time California resident who had ceased to be a German subject under German law and who served during World War I as a Red Cross surgeon rather than as part of Germany’s armed forces—did not acquire “enemy” character under the Trading with the Enemy Act. Accordingly, the Custodian’s vesting of his U.S. property on the premise that it was enemy property could not stand, and the district court’s dismissal of Vowinckel’s suit for return of the property was reversed.


Vowinckel v. Federal Trust, 10 F.2d 19 (1926)