Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T01:25:39.196Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Balfour, Guthrie & Co. v. United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2017

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Judicial Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , January 1951 , pp. 198 - 199
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1951

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Citing Advisory Opinion on Keparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, I. C. J. Reports, 1949, p. 174; this Journal, Vol. 43 (1949), p. 589.

2 This Journal, Supp., Vol. 40 (1946), p. 85.

3 Plaintiff’s capacity to sue as assignee of UNRRA was not questioned in United Nations v. Adler, 90 F. Supp. 440 (S. D. N. Y., May 18, 1950). In International Refugee Organization v. Republic S. 8. Corp., 92 F. Supp. 674 (D. Md., July 8, 1950), the court held that although the IRO had capacity to sue, it could not bring in a Federal District Court an action against a Panamanian corporation in which no “federal question” was involved. Jurisdiction based on “diversity of citizenship” was limited to cases between citizens of different States, or between citizens of a State and foreign states or citizens or subjects thereof; and the IRO was not a citizen (or corporation) of one of the United States. Jurisdiction of the Federal courts did not extend to “suits solely between aliens where no federal question is involved.” Although the IRO might be regarded as constituted under an agreement equivalent to a treaty, the cause of action did not “arise under a treaty of the United States” within the terms of the section conferring on the Federal courts jurisdiction over actions arising under such treaties.