which have been incurred or arisen subsequent to that date.'
Placing the same construction upon the words of section 9(a) as has been done heretofore and prior to the amendment in 1920, it is evident that even were the judgment to be deemed a debt, it was not a debt owing from an enemy on the date when the Act automatically went into effect in World War II, and was not therefore a debt upon which a claim might be made within the contemplation of section 9(a) of the Act.
Subsequent to the date upon which this matter was heard by this Court and decision of the issues reserved, Public Law 671, 79th Congress, 2nd Session, approved August 8, 1946, was enacted and became a part of the Act. 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 34(a), which was added to the Act by P.L. 671, while not deemed by the court to be controlling in this action, lends further support to the conclusions hereinbefore stated. That section provides in part, as follows:
'No debt claim shall be allowed under this section if it was not due and owing at the time of such vesting or transfer (in the Alien Property Custodian) * * * .'
There remains one further matter which mist be considered. Public Law 671, supra, additionally provided, inter alia, under section 34(i) that:
'The sole relief and remedy available to any person seeking satisfaction of a debt claim out of any property or interest which shall have been vested in or transferred to the Alien Property Custodian (other than any property or interest acquired by the United States prior to December 18, 194y), or the proceeds thereof, shall be the relief and remedy provided in this section, and suits for the satisfaction of debt claims shall not be instituted, prosecuted, or further maintained except in conformity with this section * * * .'
Section 34(e) provides that only suits to review the custodian's determination under the Act are maintainable with respect to debt claims, and in part states as follows:
'Within sixth days after the date of mailing of the Custodian's determination, any debt claimant whose claim has been disallowed in whole or in part may file in the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia a complaint for review of such disallowance naming the Custodian as defendant.'
Citing the above amendments to the Act, the government has made a further motion to dismiss this action on the ground that the provisions of Section 34(i) bar any further proceedings herein and that the rendition of an opinion by this court would constitute the 'further maintaining' of this suit not in conformity with the provisions of section 34.
In the view of the Court, however, the filing of an opinion by the Court in a matter previously taken under advisement does not constitute a prosecution or further maintaining of a suit within the intendment of Section 34(i).
Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss is denied.
Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted.
An order may be entered accordingly.