e fair market value of these ac-time of loss must be determinedount of such loss. George M.

In view of the liquid charactersafely be assumed that the claim_ng these accounts receivable inn market, would not, in all prob-tunt them for more than 10 per_thereof. We therefore find ihatralue of the claimant,s accountsrf loss was g2I8 less 921.g0, or

made on account of the loss ofh loss was inaurred by reason of3st on account of the possession'his evacuation. Shigeru HenryVor can any allowance be madlthe hot water heater since bvbetween the parties such hoi)n was actually the property of

259

CLAIMS OF PAUL HONDA AND RIKU KUSUNOKI

tNos. 146-35-75t and' 752. Deciclecl Julv 6 19511

FINDINGS OX'FACT

These claims alleging losses of $2,114 and $395, re-spectively, were received by the Attorney General onFebruary 23, L949. Both claims arise out of the samestate of facts and involve losses occasioned by the sale atauction of claimants' property by officials of the WRAwhile the said pro,perty was in their custody. ClaimantRiku Kusunoki and her former husband, MasatakeHonda, were both born in Japan of Japanese parents.Claimant Honda, the son of the other claimant hereinand Masatake Honda, was born in San Francisco, Cali-fornia. On December 7, I94L, claimant Kusunoki, herformer husband, and claimant Honda resided at 2621 Sut-ter Street, San Francisco, California, from whence theywere evacuated on May 10, 1942, pursuant to militaryorders issued under authority of Executive Order No.9066, dated February Ig, L942. They were sent to theTanforan Assembly Center and thereafter to the TopazRelocation Center in Utah. At no time since December7,lg4L, has either claimant gone to Japan. The claim-ant Kosunoki's husband died while at the Topaz Relo-cation Center on September ?:3, 1943, intestate, leavingno debts and an estate valued at less than $1,000. Shortlyprior to evacuation, the claimant's husband packed theirpersonal property, including the community propertyowned by himself and his wife, and personal effects of theclaimant Honda in 7 trunks and boxes and stored same inthe Buddhist Church at 1881 Pine Street, San Francisco,California. Some time after the death of her husband,and on or about February L6,LgM,the claimant Kusunoki,

264

on indefinite leave statug left the relocation center andtook up residence in Boston, Massachusetts. In Augustof 1945, the officers of the aforementioned BuddhistChurch, in order to make room for temporary dormitoryaccommodations for returning evacuees, turned over cus-tody of all evacuee property stored therein to the \ryRAwhich thereupon transferred such property to a conuner-cial warehouse in San Francisco. Neither of the aboveclaimants was aware of such transfer nor was either ofthem at any time thereafter notified thereof. At a laterdate, the WRA attempted to locate the owners of all un-claimed evacuee property in their custody and claimantdid in fact receive notice stating in effect that all un-claimed evacuee property still in their custody on a cer-tain date would be sold at public auction. Claimants,however, in the mistaken belief that their property wasstill stored in the Buddhist Church, ignored such notice.Thereafter, on April 28,1946, in accordance with the regu-iations then in effect, the WRA caused unclaimed lots ofevacuee property to be sold at public auction. The 7trunks and boxes containing the claimants' property weresold, as Lot No. D-328, for $100 which sum was placed ina special trust receipt account, United States Treasury,where on proper application and proof of entitlement theclaimants may receive their proportionate shares thereof.The claimants learned of the sale of their property inSeptember 1946 when another member of their familyreturned to California and inquired at the BuddhistChurch concerning the property in question. The fairand reasonable value of the claimants' property at thetime of loss, for which claim is herein made, amounted to$910.75. From the sale at auction, the sum of $100 wasrealized leaving a compensable balance of $810.75. It isto be noted that the claims herein consolidated were sub-mitted simultaneously.

None of the aforementioned losses have been compen-sated for by insurance or otherwise.

At the informal hearing in sug!

"of.i;t .f"i*, she requested that h1

i""f"a" ti" pairs of lace curtains aru

;'il;;-,eusoouble value at tl

il; ;;;- had been stored in thr

;;;;;; but the said claimant h:

;h;; in ner original claim'

R.EASONS FOR DE(

The evidence of loss consists of

both claimants and other corrobot

il;f;ilhereinabove found' rn

;;;hhg to the contrarY u"d-Pl

""t"f"it"a. For the allowabilitY

"tt" l"if"a to or in the custodY o:

ugl"tTn"teof, see Yasuhei Nagc--Inu**r,.h

as claimant Kusul

.l;tt" t- merelY one of Particulap"t-i..iUf". Kigoii' Murat" ant

sh;ima,luprd"In addition to his Personal eff'

tot *iti.ft claim is made bY Hot

*iir. """r.Les, 12 linen handkerclJns ana 2loose diamonds' whi

io""n"a to his father' However'

to Juch articles, as communrty

ti*-G*am Cod'e of Cal't'forn*r."4 to Honda's mother'-tl'C]ti*r"t

Honda stated thathe

JrJ* ""a"t the imPresst-*"lhb".u*" the owner thereo'f aftet

i*nt"*.i"".which he concludet

Ilowever, srnce it is clear that t

;;;&rt"ed' the legal ownersl

their loss, we think it unnecess

These claims were obviously

uUtV UV one of the claimant's

the relocation center andrlassachusetts. In August,aforementioned Buddhistn for temporary dormitoryevacuees, turned over cus-tored therein to the WRAtch property to a commer-co. Neither of the abovetransfer nor was either ofrtified thereof. At a laterccate the owners of all un-heir custody and claimant,;ing in effect that all un-in their custody on a cer-rblic auction. ClaimanLs,rf that their property wasLurch, ignored such notice.r accordance with the regu-I caused unclaimed lots ofut public auction. The 7r claimants' property were0 which sum s/as placed in, United States Treasury,d proof of entitlement therportionate shares thereof.sale of their property in: member of their familynquired at the Buddhistty in question. The fairlaimants' property at theherein made, amounted totion, the sum of $100 wasbalance of $810.75. It isein consolidated were sub-

losses have been comnen-rise.

26r

At the informal hearing in support of claimant Kusu-

noki's claim, she requested that her claim be amended to

include six pairs of lace curtains and two comforters having

a fair and reasonable value at the time of loss of $22'

These items had been stored in the church with the other

propertybutthesaidclaimanthadforgottentoincludethem in her original claim.

NSASONS FOR DECISION

The evidence of loss consists of the sworn testimony of

both claimants and other corroborative matter confirming

the facts hereinabove found. Investigation has revealed

nothing to the contrary and such facts therefore stand

unrebuited. For the allowability of loss of personal prop-

erty bailed to or in the custody of the Government or any

agent thereof, see Yasuhei' Nagashima, ante, p' 135'fnasmuch as claimant Kusunoki's amendment to her

claim is merely one of particularity, such amendment ispermissible. Kigoii Murat. ante, p. 45; Yasuhei' Nago'

sfuima, suprd'.In addition to his personal effects, ineluded in the items

for which claim is made by Honda were 6 men's shirts, 5

silk neckties, 12 linen handkerchiefs, 1 gold watch, 1 gold

ring, and 2loose diamonds, which items had formerly be-

longed to his f.abher. Ifowever, on his father's death, title

to such articles, as community property, by operation ofLaw (Probate Code of Californio, $$ 20t,202) mav havepassed to Honda's mother, the other claimant herein.Claimant Honda stated that he included these items in hisclaim under the impression that he, a,nd not his mother,became the owner thereof after the death of his father, animpression which he concluded may have been enoneous.However, since it is clear that one of the two parties c}aim-ant obtained the legal ownership of these articles prior totheir loss, we think it unnecessary to decide between them.These claims were obviously prepared together, presum'

ably by one of the claimants acting for the other; were

262

mailed to the Attorney General in the same envelope;and made cross-reference each to the other. Indeed, theclaim of the mother would be incomplete but for the factthat it incorporates by reference the explanation set forthin the claim of the son. Cf . Fumiyo Kojima, ante,p.209.Accordingly, to the extent that such doubts exist, theciaim may be treated as a joint demand. Consent ofclaimant Honda to payment of the entire award to hismother having been given, payment thereof in satisfactionof both claims will be made to claimant Kusunoki. Thismethod of payment is effected since some doubt existsas to who is the legal owner of certain of the items andthere is further ambiguity as to the portions of the amounton deposit with the Treasury which would be deductiblefrom their respective claims. Payment of the awardherein to the one claimant will thus permit both claimantsto determine as between themselves the respective sharesthereof to which each of them is entitled.