Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T05:29:23.400Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dexter & Carpenter, Inq. v. Kunglig Jarnvagstyrelsen et al.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2017

Philip C. Jessup  and
Francis Deák
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
Current Notes
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , April 1931 , pp. 335 - 339
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1931

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

* Printed infra, p. 360

1 See: Conclusions of M. Matsuda, Rapporteur for the Subcommittee of the League of Nations Committee of Experts for the Progressive Codification of International Law, 1926, in this Journal , Vol. 22, Suppl. (1928), p. 127. Exchange v. M'Faddon (U. S. Sup. Ct., 1812), 7 Cranch 116; The Parlement Beige (Gr. Brit., Ct. of App., 1880), L. R. 5 P. D. 197; Gouv. espagnol c. Lambège et Pujol (France, Cour de Cassation, Civ.), 1849 Dalloz, Pér. 1.5; Heizer g. Kaiser-Franz-Joseph-Bahn A. G. (Germany, Gerichtshof für Kompetenzkonflikte), Gesetz-und Verordnungs blattfür das Königreich Bayern, 1885, Beilage I.

2 Duff Development Co., Ltd. v. Government of Kelantan, et al. (Gr. Brit., House of Lords), L. R. [1924] A. C. 797; Rochaid-Dahdah c. Gouv. tunisien (France, Trib. civ., Seine) 1888, I. Gaz. Pal. 626; X . g. Türkischen Fiskus (Germany, Reichsgericht), 55 Jur. Wochenschrift (1926), Pt. I, 804.

3 La Republique Frangaise, et al. v. Saratoga Vichy Spring Co. (U. S. Sup. Ct. 1903), 191 U. S. 438; Le gouv. espagnol c. d'Aguado (France, Cour d'appel, Paris), 1867 Dalloz, Pir. 2.49 [laches]; The King of Spain v. Hullet & Widder (Gr. Brit., House of Lords, 1833), 1 Ch. & Fin. 333 [answer over personal signature and under oath]; Rothschild v. Queen of Portugal (Gr.Brit., Ct.of Exch., 1839), 3 Yo. & Coll.549 [discovery]; Republic of Honduras v. Soto (Ct. of App., New York, 1889), 112 N. Y. 310; Otho, King of Greece v. Wright (Gr. Brit., Privy Council, 1837), 6 Dowl. 12; Emperor of Brazil v. Robinson (Gr. Brit., King's Bench, 1838), 6 Ad. & Ell. 801; Republic of Costa Rica v. Erlanger (Gr. Brit., Ct. of App.), L. R. [1876] 3 Ch. Div. 62; Navire Western Wave (France, Trib. de comm., Marseille, 1921, II. Gaz. Pal. 112; Het Ottomaansche Keizerrijk t. Roselius& Co. (Netherlands, Arr. Rechtbank, Amsterdam), 1921 Weekbl. v. h. Recht, 10707,4:2 [security for costs].

4 Rowan v. Sharps' Rifle Mfg. Co. (Sup. Ct. of Errors, Conn. 1860), 20 Conn. 282; Kingdom of Norway v. Federal Sugar Refining Co. (Dist. Ct., So. Dist., N. Y., 1923), 286 Fed. 188; The Newbattle (Gr. Brit., Ct. of App., 1885), L. R. 10 P. D. 33; Letort v. Gouv. Ottoman (France, Trib. civ., Seine), 5 Revue jur. intemat. de la locomotion atrienne (1914), 142. In Hellfeld g. Fiskus des russischen Reiches (Germany, Preussische Gerichtshof zur Entscheidung der Kompetenzkcmflikte), 20 Zeitschrift für internaMonales Recht (1910), 416 (English translation in this Journal , Vol. 5, 1911, p. 490), the question of submission to the counterclaim was not passed upon by the Court of Jurisdictional Conflicts, which passed only on the issue of execution. However, the Imperial Consular Court of Shanghai allowed the counterclaim in 1907, over the protest of the Russian Government, reversing on this point the trial court.

5 South African Republic v. La Compagnie Franco-Beige du Chemin de Fer du Nord (Gr. Brit., Ct. of Chanc.), L. R. [1898] 1 Ch. Div. 190. It might be pointed out here that even with respect to counterclaims arising out of the same transaction, there is a difference of opinion as to whether an affirmative judgment can be entered on a counterclaim against a plaintiff foreign state; the prevalent opinion seems to be opposed to such a possibility. See: French Republic v. Inland Navigation Co. (Dist. Ct., East. Dist., N. Y., 1920), 263 Fed. 410; Gouv. Russe c. Simmonet, Heslouin & Cie (France, Trib. civ., Brest), 1908, II, Gaz. des Trib. 224; contrà: Letort c. Gouv. Ottoman, supra, note (4).

6 Vavasseur v. Krupp (Gr. Brit., Ct. of App. 1878), L. R. 9 Chaac. Div. 351; Duff Development Co. v. Government of Kelantan, supra, note (2); Vve. Caratier-Terrasson c. Direction g^nerale des chemin de fer d'Alsace-Lorraine (France, Cour de Cassation, Civ.), 1885 Dalloz, Pir. 1.341; Aff. du navire Campos et Lloyd Bréilien c. Cie. Chargeurs Réunis (France, Trib. de comm., Havre), 46 Clunel (1919), 747; v. Hellfeld g. Fiskus des russischen Reiches (Germany), supra, note (4); N. V. Bergverksahtiebolaget t. het Militar Liquidirungsamut (Netherlands, Gerechtshof, Amsterdam), 1921 Weekblad v. h. Recht, 10750, 2:1.

7 See the diplomatic correspondence relating to the Zappa case, statements of the Belgian and Italian Foreign Offices in response to enquiry made by the Rumanian Government, 108 Archives diplonuUiques (1893), 118, 120. See also: De Marigo Kildani Vve. Haggar v. Fisc Hellénique (Egypt, Cour d'appel mixte), 11 Gaz. des Trib. Mixtes d'Egypte (1911-12), 161; G. S. g. U. S. Shipping Board (The Ice King), (Germany, Reichsgericht, 1921), 103 Entsch. des R. G. in Ziv. Sachen, 274; Storelli c. Govemo della Repubblica francese (Italy, Trib. civ., Roma), 1924 Giurispr. Ital. 206.

8 A. g. Das Deutsche Reich (Austria, K. K. oberste Gerichtshof, 1878), Sammlung v. Zivilrechtlichen Entscheidungen, 2; Etat de Suède c. Petrocochino (France, Trib. civ., Seine), 1930 Dalloz, Hebd., 15. Contrà,: a decision of the Sup. Ct. of Czechoslovakia of April 16,1928, where execution against the Hungarian Legation in Prague was allowed. The decision is discussed in an article by Deák, ‘ “Immunity of a Foreign Mission's Premises from Local Jurisdiction,” this Journal , Vol. 23 (1929), 582 ff.

9 Soc. anon, des Chemins de fer Liégeois-Luxembourgeois c. Etat néerlandais (Belgium, Cour de Cassation), 1903 Pasic. Beige, 294; Peruvian Guano Co. c. Dreyfus (Belgium, Cour de Cassation), 1881 Pasic. Beige, 2.313; Ran, Vanden Abeele & Gie. c. Duruty (Belgium, Cour d'appel, Gand), 1879 Pasic. Beige, 2.175; Momoyer et Bernard c. Etat francjais (Belgium, Trib. civ., Charleroi), 1927 Pasic. Beige, 3.129; Capitaine Hall c. Capitaine Zacarias Bengoa (Egypt, Cour d'appel mixte), 33 Bull. de législation et de jurisprudence égyptienne (1920-21), 25; Lahkowshy c. Gouv. fédéral suisse et Regnier (France, Cour d'Appel, Paris), 48 Clunet (1921), 179; Etat Roumain c. Pascalet & Cie. (France, Trib. de comm., Marseille), 1924 Dalloz, Hebd. 260; Guttieres c. Elmilik (Italy, Corte di Cassazione, Firenze), 1886 Foro Italiano, I, 913; Typaldos, Console di Gregia c. Maniconio di Aversa (Italy, Corte di Cassaeione, Napoli), 1886 Ciurispr. Ital. Pt. I. Sez. I, 228; Hamspohn c. Bey di Tunisi (Italy, Corte d'appeUo, Lucca), 1887 Faro Italiano, I, 474; Rappr. comm. dell'Jnione della repubbliche sovietiste socialiste c. Ditta Tesini e Malvesse (Italy, Corte di Cassazione, Sezioni Unite), 66 Monitore dei Tribunali (1925), 604; Stato di Rumania c. Trutta (Italy, Corte di Cassazione, Sezioni Unite), 67 Monitore dei Tribunali (1926), I, 288.

10 Etat Roumain c. Pascalet & Cie., supra, note (9); X. g. Turkischen Fiskus, supra, note (2); K. K. Oesterreich. inanzministerium g. Dreyfus (Switzerland, Bundesgericht), 44 Entscheid. des Schweiz. Bundesgerichtes (1918), 49.

11 Coale, et al. v. Société Co-operative Suisse des Charbons, Basle, et al. (Dist. Ct., So. Dist., N. Y., 1921) 21 F. (2d) 180; United States v. Deutsches Kalisyndicat Gesellschaft, et al. (Dist. Ct., So. Dist., N. Y., 1929) 31 F. (2d) 199; Soc. riunite di assicurazione c. U. S. Shipping Board (Italy, Corte d'Appello, Napoli), 67 Monitore dei Tribunali (1926), I, 336.

12 A plea of immunity raised at an advanced stage of the proceedings was denied by the U. S. Supreme Court in the case of Porto Rico v. Bonocio Ramos (1914), 232 U. S. 627.

13 See the following language of Lord Stemdale, M.R., in Duff Development Company v. Kelantan Government, L. R. [1923, I] Ch. Div. 385, 410: “I have no sympathy with sovereign States who grant concessions and enter into litigation in respect of commercial transactions, and when they fail say: ‘ It injures our sovereign dignity that we should pay the costs we have been ordered to pay of litigation which we have promoted.’ I should have thought it was more consistent with sovereign dignity to pay.”