· 'r--l ".

, ·
"" "" " 0'____ .,



.. - - - -

"~ ~_~+r,L~f'i

-rt. -

. . ,. K) .


- '" -.. --t
o _'••


Admtnfstratlve Law-Davis


Agency-TI1fany, 2d Ed.. Agency, Studies--Seavey Bankruptcy-MacLachlan Bills and Notes-Britton Code Pleading-Clark, 2d EeL Common Law Pleadlng-Shipman . Conlllct of Laws-Ehrenzweig Con1Uct of Laws-Goodrlch, 3d Ed. Con1Uct of Laws-Selected Readings Constitutional Law-Rottschaefer Contracts-Corbln

Insurance-Vance. 3d Ed. Internatlonal Law-Wilson, 3d Ed. Law Examlnatlons-Smlth Law. How to Ffnd-5th EeL . Law Problems-Ballantine, 4th Ed. Law Quizzer-Owen Law Re1reshers-Burby Law ReView Series-Smith Legal HIstory-Radin Legal Professlon-5elected Readings Legal Writing Style-Welhofen


Corporatlons-HeM Corporations-Stevens, 2d Ed. Creditors' Rlghts-CSee Bankruptcy) Criminal Law-Miller Damages-McCormick Domestle Relatlons-Madden Elementary Law-5mlth, 2d EeL Equlty-McCllntock, 2d Ed. EvIdence-McCormick Evidence-Selected Writings ~ture Interests-Sbnes

Partnershlp-crane, 2d Ed. Personal Property. Readings-Fryer Real Property-Burby. 2d Ed. Real Property. Survey-Moynihan Real Property, Survey-Smith Sales-Vold.2d Ed. Suretyshlp-..Slmpson Torts-Prosser, 2d EeL Trusts-Bogert. 3d Ed. Trusts, Survey-Smith U. S. Courts-BUDD. 5th Ed. WiUs-AtIdnsou, 2d Ed.


Walter- Perry lohusoD Professor of Law University of California, Berkeley






W'B.ST PU'BLISKIlfG 00.. 1965'
" a6 .












UTn Conftict of Laws, the wildemess grows wilder, faster than the axes of discriminating men can keep it \Dlder controL The concepts of the Restatement have been shattered by the devastating attacks of Cook and Lorenzen. . The demolition of obsolete theories makes the judge's task harder, as he· works his way out of the· wreckage.. . He has a better chance to arrive at the least erroneous answer if the scholars have labored in advance to break ground for new paths. • • • tt
Thus Justice Traynor has admonished us to help the judge in his difficult task. In the 1959 edition of Part One of this treatise I tried to' heed that admonition in a largely new systematic analysis. Several distinguished courts, rejecting "official doctrine," have since on occasion availed themselves of that analysis, and some of it may have proved useful to counsel in arguing against deceptive black letter rules. Moreover, four years of experience and critical evaluation in reviews and oral comment have given substance to my hope that this book might also be welcome to some of my colleagues. Where in our teaching we must shift from thesis to antithesis, from the law's specificity to doctrinaire generality, there is often compelling need for synthesis. Finally, I have tried to assist the student by giving him some of that basic information which courses on conflict of laws, jurisdiction, and procedure must leave to self-study in order to relieve class discuss1on- from the pressure of growing subject matter. Those of my students who found difficult the unguided comprehension of a style compressed .by lack of space and skill, have asslU'ed me that the book has proved useful to them for purposes of review. ' These· experiences have. helped to overcome my misgiving about this attempt to offer the same tool to bench, bar, and schooL Indeed, there was no otherway: A. text for students alone would have tended to restate an oversimplified fiction that would mJslead them in later practice; a guide for lawyers alone would have tended to conceelpew thought in "acceptable" language at the risk of perpetuating chaotic dogma; and a treatise for the scholar alone would have tended to emphasize speculation as to what the law ought to be. For better or worse I have tried to describe the law as it appears in the actual decisions rather than in the language of the courts. Tbis technique, though perhaps overambitious and often controversial" seems unavoidable today. It must prepare the way for those more fortunate who in the future, no longer burdened by dogmatic heritage, will be able, to follow courts and writers in accepted categories and terms. Then the time will also have come when practical and systematic treatment can be separated on solid ground.. Analysis of actual court practice, as opposed to court language, has been even more difftcult with regard to choice of law than it was in my earlier attempt on the law of jurisdiction. That the American Digest System does not





;~ _';1

PREFACE include choice of law in its classifications, is well-known. But the marshaling of pertinent case law has been even more seriously impeded by the prevailing. custom (abetted by the.4..meriCan· Law Institute's Restatement in the Courts) to cite, as authorities for confilCtS "rules," decisions that do· not state, and often do not even involve a coiUlict. Such false authorities unhappily constitute the bulk of the case law customarily relied on 'in field. They have been noted throughout to faclIitate proper cOncentration on true contlicts decisions. Where such decisions fail to supply a rule, I have so stated and attempted to prepare the way for future· solutions by an analysis of the history and of the poliCY background of each question. ....... To achieve the purposes of this book it has been necessary to draw primarily on current practice. But many cases predating the past-two decades have been retained or at least kept accessible by citation to leading law review comment. And, in view of the scarcity of authority, international contUcts cases have been fully covered. Their partial separation from interstate conflicts cases in Part One has found almost unanimous acclaim. In order to facilitate this separation, "foreign" contacts have again been named "extranational" when related only to 'foreign countries rather than to both such countries and sister states. References to foreign literature (including that of the Soviet orbit) are extensive but limited to writings which lead to useful analyses of problems similar to those arising in this country. For, the primary concern of this book has remained everyday practice in interstate law.






A. B. C. D.

Jurisdiction and Choice of Law _________________________________ Unitarian and Pluralistic Theories ______________________________ International and Interstate Confticts __________________________ Sources _______________________________________________________

1 3




WILL THE COURT TAKE THE CASE? First Sub·chapter. The Parties Before the Court (Procedural

A. Active Capacity (Standing to Sue) _________________________ B. Passive Capacity (Standing to be Sued) ___________________

35 36 59

. To my critics go my thanks for whatever improvement I might have been able' to achieve either in the present revised edition of Part One on Jurisdiction and Judgments or in the new Part Two on Choice of Law; above all to the reviewers and those colleagues and friends who read chapters bearing on their fields of specialization. The list is long and includes B. N. Armstrong, H. Aufricht, E. L. Barrett, G. W. Bartholomew (Singapore), H. Batiffol (Paris), E. E. Cheatham, Z. Cowen (Melbourne), R. E. Degnan, R. Oe Nova. (Pavia), J. G. Fleming, E. C. Halbach, G. C. Hazard, I. M. Heyman, V. Hoffmeyer (Hamburg), B. D. Inglis (New Zealand), R. W. Jennings, S. Kagel, G. Kegel (Cologne), F. Kessler, W. T. Laube, D. W. LouiseII, F. C•. Newman, W. L. Prosser, S. A. Riesenfeld, R. B~ Schlesinger, H. H. Schreter, D. H. Vernon, P. R. H. Webb (Nottingham), R. J. Weintraub, and A. Yiannopoulos. T. Reynolds' ever patient assistance in the library was invaluable. As in the preface to Part One, I should like to conclude by aclmowledging my indebtedness to the work of those who, follOwing W. W. Cook and E. G. Loren7A!D, have been the pioneers of the new era: D. F. Cavers, B. Currie, R. A. Leflar, A. Nussbaum, E. Rabel, M. Rheinstein, G. F. Stumberg, and H. E. Yntema. How much I owe· to A. L. Corbin will appear throughout the .chapter on contracts.
Berkeley. Calltornia April 9. 1962

Second Sub-chapter. (Loeal) Jurisdiction and Proper Process: "Does the Court Have Jurisdiction?" __________________________ 71 A. Jurisdiction in Rem ______________________________________ 79 B. Jurisdiction in Personam _________________________________ 88

Third Sub-chapter. (The Convenient Forum): ''Will the Court Take 120 JUJisdicaoD?W _______________________________________ A. "Discretionary" Dismissal _________________________________ 121 B. "Mandatory" Dismissal ___________________________________ 140
Chapter Two RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS A. Theory of Recognition ______________ ~ ___________ ~--------- 161 B: " Requirements of Recognition ("Judgments") _______________ 169 C. Mode, Scope and Effect of Recognition ("Res Judicata") ____ 215

Three235 236 245 249


DIVORCE, ANNULMENT AND TBEIR INCIDENTS First Sub.chapter. Divorce- ________________________________________ A. Local Jurisdiction ________________________________________ B. International Jurisdiction (Extranational Divorces) ________ C. Interstate Jurisdiction (Sister State Divorces) ______________


Second Su~c:hapter. Support _______ --------_______________________ 268 A. Local Jurisdiction _________________________________________ 268 B. Foreign Support Decrees ----------------- _________________ 272
EhrInzwtlg ConflIct of I.&ws





-,-,. ._"._. . . .


Third Sab-c:hapter. Children's Custody _________________ 281 cQon ________________________________________ 281 ~ ~ Jurisdi . -----------B. Foreign Custody Decrees __________________________________ 283
Fourth'Sub-c:hapter. Annulment ___________________________________ --____________________________________________ B., Local Jurisdiction _________________________________________ C. Foreign ______________________________________
~ T~ology



Third Sub-chapter. Torts __________________________________________ A. General Introduction ______________________________________ B. Intentional Torts (''Wrongs'' or "Delicts") ________________ C.;" Accidents (Enterprise Liability) __________________________




541 541 557 568-



300 300 301

Fourth Sub-c:hapter. Other ObUgatioDS _____________________________ 598 ~ Restitution _______________________________ - _--- ------ - - - -- 598 B. lVorkIn~s Co~pensation _________________________________ 604 Chapter Seven

Part Two·

CHOICE OF LAW Chapter Four

A. B.

GENERAL THEORY The Law of the Forum-Basic Rule _____________________________ 309 The Law of the Foru~ Displaced ______________________________ 347 Chapter Five PERSONS

PROPERfilr First Sub-c:bapter. Transactions Inter Vivos ________________________ A. Land _____________________________________________________ B. __________________________________________________ _, C. Intangibles (Assignments and Trusts) _____________________ D. Marital Property: Selected Probl~ _____________________

606 607 616

653 653

Second Sub-c:hapter. Succession ____________________________________ Introduction ______________________________________________ B. _______________________________________________ C. Movables _________________________________________________

658 665

First Sab-chapter. General Problems _______________________________ 369
"Status" and Its "Incidents" ______________________________ 369 B.. The "Personal Law" _______________________________________ 372

INDICES ______________________________________________________ --- 681 Cases '-'Authors ____________________________________ - - - ---- -- ---- ------ 749

Subject l(atber ________________________________________________ 759

Second"-Sub-c:hapter. Domestic RelationS ___________________________ 375 A. Engagement to Marry ____________________________________ 375 B. Maztiage _________________________________________________ 376 Third Sub-c:hapter. "Juristic Perso"" (Associations and Other Entities) ____________________________________________ A. Corporations ______________________________________________ B. l1nincorporated ______________________________ C. Property and Enterprise as Legal Entities ________ ~ _________



Chapter Six OBLIGATIONS First Sub-chapter. General Problems _______________________________ 42'1 ______________________________________________ B. ------____________________________________________
~ ~ertniDation ~



C. Third Parties (Agency, Third Party Beneficiaries and "icaJious LJability) _____________________________________ Second Sub-chapter. Contracts _____________________________________ A. "alidity of the Contract ___________________________________ . B. Scope of the Contr.act __________________ C. Discharge of the Contract __________________ .:_~ _____ .:._" __ ~:._ D. D~ges for Breach _________________________ ~~~_::.: _______ E. Particular Contracts ____ :....:______.______________ ~ ______ ~:;.~ __


453 458 490

504 511




Preface ______________________________________________________ ----



Abbreviations of PeriOdicals ______________________________________ XXXIX Bibliography' ____________________________________________ .________

CONFLICT OF LAWS GENERAL INTRODUCTION § 1. A. Jurisdiction and Choice of Law __________________________ B. Unitarian and Pluralistic Theories ________________________
§ 2.
.. .:!.

1 3
3 4

1. The Theme: No-law, Super-law and Law _____________ 2. No-law: "Comity of Nations" ________________________
American beginnings; foreIgn antecedents (nome and England) ; Dutch models

.~.~ ...:_"


§ 3• § 4.


Super-law: "Jurisdiction" and "Vested-Rights" ------- 6 Judicial jurisdiction _____________________________ 6 "Legislative- jurisdiction" ________________________ 8 "Vested rights" _________________________________ 9 Holmes, Hand and Goodrich _____________________ 10 The Restatement ________________________________ 12

§ 5.

4. No Super-law: Stone, Cook and Lorenzen ------------- 18 5. Against "No-law": Outlook _________________________ 15

§ 6. C. International and Interstate Conflicts _____________________ 16

Need for an Interstate Conflicts Law ----------------- 17
Constitutional control; specific subjects; polley considerations

2. Need for'an International Conflicts Law -------------- 18

§ 7. D. Sources __________________________________ 22 1. International Law __________________________________ 22

Policy considerations; proof of foreign law; conceptual peeuU· aritles; the "homeward trend"; public International and fed· eral law; the Restatement

§ 8.



Law ________________________________________ a.. "National" Law _________________________________ International con1licts _______________________ Interstate con1licts- ("Federal Field") ________

Treaties and executive' agreements; "American nationality"; consular rigbts; International customary law

26 26 26 27


§ 9.

~J"! Constitutional Impact upon State Law ----------- 28 '

§. 9.'

Jurisdiction and judgments __________________ Choice of law -----------_____________________
Antecedents" (due process and full faith and credit);
Green v. Van Buskirk; Pink v. A.A.A. Hlgbway Express; Bradford Electric Co. v. Clapper; Hugbes v. Fetter and its aftermath; full·faith and credit to stat-


28· 28

§ 17.
§ 18.


TABLE" OF" CONTENTS' Powers of Attorney ______________________________



.' 3. Foreign Governments ____ :..___________________________ 58

§§ 19-20~


Utes-a misnomer

§ 10.

3. State Law -----------________________________________



B.. Passive- Capacity (Standing to be Sued) ___________________ 59 1. Individuals _________________________________________ 59 Guardians ____________ :._________________________ 59 § 21. lteceivers _______________________________________ 59 § 22~
The role; "exceptions" (pre-existing rights In rem.. own cause of action, waiver); Morris v. Jones

Chapter· One WILL THE COURT TAKE THE CASE? (Herein of Loeal Jurisdiction)

§ 23.

Personal representatives-The rule, its history and rationale ______________ Exceptions ____________________________________


§ 11... First Sub-chapter. The Parties before the Court (Procedural Capacit,v) ---------------____________________________ A. Active Capacity. (Standing- to Sue) ______________________ § 12.' 1. Corporations and Other Associations ________________ "Legal existence" ------_______________________ Dissolved corporations -________________________ Stockholders' derivative· actions ________________ Other associations· -------______________________ § 13. 2. Individuals ------------______________________________ a. AJiens --------------___________________________ b. Minors, Married Women, Incompetent Persons, . .; and Guardians --------_______________________ c. Personal Representatives -______________________ § 14•. (1) The Rule, Its History and Rationale ________
Civil law: the English administrator (the bishop's agent); colonial law; tull taith and credit: the nineteenth century (a new isolationism); Joseph StoZ7 (a new legalism); practical considerations

§ 24.


35 36 36 36 37 38
39 40

Corporations and Other .Associations __________________ a. Dissolved Corporations _________________________ History ____________________________________ Theory and problem ________________________ Practice ___________________________________

65 65 65
66 66 68 68 69 69

Other Associations _____________________________ COD!Inon law ______________________________ Statutes ___________________________________
Joint Debtor Acts; Common Name statutes

42 44 44

Conftict of laws ____________________________

Second SulJ.ehapter. (Local) Jurisdictioft and Proper Process: "Does the Court Have-Jurisdiction?" __________________________ 71

71 § 25. Introduetioll -----------------------------------.:------------- 72 1. _________________ ____________________ _
~~oloRJr ~


§ 15•.


§ 16.

50 50 "Waiver' of incapacity -_______________ 52 -Statutory authority· ----._______________ 52 "Comity" ----------___________________ 53 d. "Real Party in Interest" ----____________________ 5S" e. Receivers ------------__________________________ 54r Function .and local jurisdiction· ______ :.______ 54 The rule --------------_____________________ 54 Exceptions ________________"..:_______________ 55Own cause of action: right to possession; "quasiassignee" j "statutory successor" j "waiver" and amendment; comity

,(2) Exceptions -------________________________ Party to transaction ---________________ . Holder in due course -_________________ Trustee for n~f-kin -_______________

48 49.

72 b. The "Jurisdiction of the United States"· ________ _ 74"' e. Jurisdiction "In Rem" and "In Personam" ________ 76 2. ____________________________________ 77
~eral ~ry

Jurisdiction Over the·Subject Matter and COn!petency _________________________________ _

The problem; the ~ myth; current. trends .

§ 2&. A. Jurisdiction u.Rem ______________________________________ 79 1. Action& in Rem __________________________________ .___ 79
~ Judgments in Rem _________________________________. 3. Service of Process __________________________________. 4.. Situs as a Basis of Jurisdiction ______________________ 5. Status as a. uRes'~ (Adoption) _______________________

81 82 83 85

B. Jurisdiction iIt PersoD8lll: _________________________________ 88 1.. Individuals ________________________________________ ::. 56-

Rationale and outlook -----_________________


Personal Service-Required ----------------------


§ 27.
~e ~ule

__________________________________ 88


§·3& •.

(2) Exception: Consent (Appearance) --------(3) Exception: "~etained" and "Continuing" Jurisdiction ___________________________
"Concomitant" and "collateral" actions; permissible amendments

§ 37.




TABLE OF CONTENTS Paget Stay of-domestic proceedings ________________ 127 Toleration of foreign proceedings ---------- 129 Cause of Action Affected ________________________ ISO Barred by stntute of limitations _____________ 130 Contrary to public policy ___________________ 133
In general: direct actiOns Qgainst insurers: "penal"

Ilctlons: "tax statutes"

§ 28.

92 (5) Exception: Constructive Service ____________ 92 Concealment, domicile and residence ____ 94 Business within the state ______________ 95 Act within the state ___________________ 96
Automobile nccldents, torts and contracts

(4) Exception: Substituted Service ------------

§- 38.

Internal affairs of a foreign corporation - -- Extinction by party's death _________________ 2. Dismissal Precluded ________________________________ a." Federal Statutes ________________________________

1S5 136 137 137 1S8 139 140 140 141 142 143 143 143
144 146

Property within the state ______________
§ 29.


Controlled property ("quasi-in-rem jurisdiction") ____________________________ 99
Rule nnd rntionale; the garnishee's and prlncipul debtor's protection (Hnrris v, Balk): other ClUieS of quasi-In-rem juritKllctlon; outlook

§ 30.

Personal Service Sufficient ______________________ 103 The "transient rule" and its rationaie ________ 103 EFJstory ________________ -------------------- 104
Transltol'Y nctions and l"enue; "cnue and foreign ~W!l!S of action


b. Statutes of Sister States: Hughes v. Fetter ---"c. Privileges and Immunities and Equal Protection B. "Mandatory" Dismissal _________________________________ 1. LocarActions (Common Law) _______________________ § 39. 2. Constitutional Compulsion? _________________________ § 40. a. Due Process ___________________________________ b. Full Faith and Credit _________________________ The "rule" ______________________ ---------"Mere remedy" (wrongful death and insurance) ____________________ -- - ------The forum's prevailing interest (workmen's compensation) _________________ -- - - -- -- - Co Interstate Commerce ___________________________
In geneml: workmen'K

§ 31. - § 32. § 33.


Exception: Immunity ______________________ Exception: Fraud and force ________________ Corporations ___________________________ -----------a. History: From Bank of Augusta to International Shoe _________________________________________ b.

107 110 110 111 112 112 113 114 118 119


d. Foreign Commerce _____________________________ 147
§ 41.

3. Contractual Ouster _________________________________ 147 "It> a. Prorogation of Other Courts ____________________ 148
History; ratlonllle; the nlleged Invalidity "rule" (lldheslon contnlCts. extranational courts); the allegcd ,'aUdlty "exceptions" (pending dispute. suits between nonresidents): the true rule (\'nUdlty Ilt arms' length); conclusion

The ~ule: From International Shoe to McGee -"Fair play and substantial justice"-Business activities and cause of action ____________ Business without domestic cause of action -Domestic cause of action without business -3. Other Associations _________________________________ 4. Personal Jurisdiction: A Summary _________________

b. Agreements to Arbitrate ________________________ England _______________________.____________ tJnited States ______________________________ Choice of Law ______________________ -- ______
Chapter Two

153 153 155 158

Third Sub-chapter. (The Convenient Forum): "Will the Court Take 120 Jurisdiction?" _______________________________________
§ 34.

Introduction ____________________ ___________________________ 120 A. "DiscretiolUU")'" Dismissal ______________________________ 121 1. Dismissal Granted __________________________________ 121 a. Forum Non Conveniens ___ -------------------- 121 (1) History and Concept ________________________ 121 §35. (2) Grounds of Inconvenience __________________ 123 Admiralty ____________________________ 123 Non-adIniralty _________________ ~----- 125 b. IJs Pendens ____________________________ ( . ---- 127 § 3&.

§ 45.


RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS (Herein of International and Interstate Jurisdiction) ________________________________________________ 160 A. Theory of Reeognition __________________________________ 161

a. - History and Comparison ---------------- _______ 161

Extranational Judgments -------------------------Civil law __________________________________ England ___________________________________ United States ______________________________

161 161 161 162




§ 46.


;' Page



b. The Constitution and Comity _____________ :. FOreign conunerce ___________________ ~~~~~~ ue process _______________________________ D "Comity" (and reciprocity) _________________ 2. Sister State-Judgments _____________________________ § 47. a. Full Faith and_ Credit __________________________ b. Comity without Compulsion ____________________ Requirements of Recognition ("Judgments") ____________ § 48. B. 1. Adjudication: Rendering Authority ________________ a. Legislative Acts ________________________________ b. Administrative Acts ____________________________ (1) Foreign Countries _________________________ Tax ______________________

164 164 164 164 166 166 167 169 169 169 170 170 170

§ 55.

§ 56.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page proper Procurement ________________________________ 198 a. Extrinsic Fraud ________________________________ 198 Interstate conflicts· ________________________ 198 International conflicts ______________________ 199 b. lJnfair Procedure ______ : _______________________ 199 Interstate conflicts __________________.______ 199
In general; judgment hy confes.<Jion ~ abuse of prOl"l'::S

Expropriations and confiscations _______ 170
"Acts of state"; public policy; the


International conflicts ____________ --------4. Substantive Propriety _____ ------------------------a. .~sence of Error? _____________________________ Extranational judgments ___________________ Sister state judgments _____________________ b. Public Policy of the Forum _____________________ (l) Public Policy in General ___________________ Extranational judgments ______________ -.. Sister state judgments _________________
Calise or action; jurisdiction

201 201 201 201 202 202 202 202 203

§ 49.

§ 50.

§ 51.

Other administrative acts ______________ (2) Sister States __________________ .. ____________ Tax assessments ______________________ Escheat _______________________________ Sheriff's levy _________________________ Other administrative acts ______________ c. Judicial Acts _________________________._______ ___ (1) International Conflicts _____________________ Admiralty _____ __ ____ __ _________ ___ ___ _ Bankruptcy ___________________________ E>.-tralitigious proceedings (adoptions, declarations of death, probate decrees) (2) Interstate Conflicts _________________________ Equity decree& in general ______________ Decrees ordering an extrastate act or forbearance _________________________
Injunction noinst lawsuit upon original claIm: injunction IIl:Qinst enforcement of Judgment: foreign Judgment obtained In violation of domestic Injunction

173 174 174 175 176 176 177 178 178 179 180 182 182 183

(2) "Penalties" and Taxes _____________________ 204 c. "Forbidden Infringement" of Forum Interests and National Policies ____________________________ 205
§ 57.

5. International (Interstate) Jurisdiction -------------- 206' a. Re-examination of the Judgment Court's Jurisdictional Finding ___________________________ 206 Jurisdiction over the subject matter -------- 207 Jurisdiction over the parties _________ ------- 208
The rule: preclusion hy--redto.l In the record: preclusion by participation

§ 58.


Re-evaluation of the Judgment Court's Jurisdic- tional Finding __ -------------------------- 209 (1) Different Type of Jurisdiction (in Personam 209 and UnReEB) ________________________ Foreign in personam judgment ineffective as to res Un forum state _________ Foreign in rem or quasi-in-rem judgment ineffective in forum state _____ - - - -- (2) Different Jurisdictional Standards --------International conflicts __________________ Interstate conflicts _____________________
Burden of proof; divorce


211 213 213 213

§ 52§ 53.

§ 54.

Decrees purporting to affect title to extrastate land _______________________ Adoption ______________________________ Adjudication of incompetency _________ Guardianships of minol'S' ________.______ Probate decrees __________________ ._____ d. Arbitration Awards _____________________________ Extranational awards ______________________ Sister state awards ________________________ 2. "Finality" and Continued Efficacy ___________________ Finality _____________________ = __________________ Statute of limitations ____________________________ Payment, release, accord and satisfaction ________

184 185 188 190' 191 193 194 195 196 196 197 198

§ 59.

§ 60. § 61. C.

6. Availability of Recognizing Court ("Closing the Door") 214 Mode Scope and Etlect of Recognition ("Res Judicata") -- 215 , 216 1. Enforcement --------------------------------------2. Res Judicata: Bar and Merger ______________________ a. Extranational Judgments _______________________ Bar _______________________________________ ]4erger ____________________________________
XIX Suit on the Judgment: "estabUshment"

§. 62.

217 217 217 217

§ 63.

§ 64. § 65;.

TABLE OF CONTENTS b. Sister State Judgments _________________________ (1) The Cause of Action _______________________ "Sameness" in a-eneral _________________ \Vorlanen's compensation: the Magnolia rule (merzer) ______________________ Two foreign judgments _______________ "On merits" ___________________________ (2) The Parties ________________________________ Class actions __________________________ Privity between adminietrators ________ 3. Collateral Estoppel _________________________________ Concept and history ____________________________
Necessary lImltntlons: civil law-leJ;al relations and dt!C!lamtory decree: efltoppel hy record and res Judicata: probable present ~pe


218 219 219

§ 74.


220 221 222 224 224 225 226 226



Interstate Jurisdiction (Sister State Divorces) ___________ 249 1. "Consent Divorces"-Party Autonomy and Jurisdiction PersoD&nl __________________________ 249

a. Estoppel and____________________________________ 249 Etule Full Faith and Credit: The Sherrer
(1) The Theory of Recognition _____________ .;. ___ (2) "Participation" ____________________________ (3) Precludedtheor.v ___________________________ The Parties: The Johnson Rule ______ The applicable law-burden of p~oof ___ The state as assailant __________________ The procuring spouse and his estate ____ illegitimate children __________________ 250 251 251 251 252 253 253 254 254 254 255 256 256

Third parties and the mutuality doctrine ________ 229

§ 75.

limitations; the "Initiative theory"; limitation

to legal relations

Conflicts applications __________________________ 232
Rendering court lacking jnrl:qllctlon: criminal nnd civil


§ 66'. § 67~' .' §§ 68-70.


The Law Determining the Scope of Res Judicata ____ 233 a. Sister State Judgments _________________________ 233 b. Extranational Judgments _______________________ 233 (Vacant). . Chapter Three-

b. Exceptions: "The New Jersey Etule" and Uniform I,egislation ___ ---________________________ "Fraud": "The New Jersey rule" _________ Uniform Divorce Recognition Act __________ c. Limited Divorce (Separation from Bed and Board) 2. Divorces Etem ___________________________________" in ex Parte-"State Interest" and Jurisdiction ____
Wholesale nonrecognition?; wholesale recogultlon?; assistIng the "Innocent" (the Haddock solution); enter the divorce mills; the.KaDsas rule

§ 76.

a. The Problem: Allor Nothing ____________________ 256

§ 77.

§ 71.

DIVORCE, ANNULMENT AND THEm INCIDENTS First Sub-chapter. Divorce _________________________________ 235 A. Local JUlisdiction, ______________________________________ 286 State Interest and Party Autonomy: Jurisdiction in Rem and in Personam ____________________________ 2. The Domicile Rule _________________________________ a. Rule or Error? _________________________________ b. "Domicile" _____________________________________ Several domiciles? _________________________ Intent and facts ___________________________ Domicile for divorce ________________________ 3.· The Lawyer's Ethical Problem -'_____________________ 4. Outlook ____________________________________________ 1. 236 238 238 240 240 240 241 242 243 245 245 245 245 247 247 247 247

§ 78..

b. The Compromise: The Williams Etule ____________ (1) Non-statutory Denial of Recognition ________ (2) The Uniform Divorce Recogilition Act ______ (3) Injunction against ex Parte Proceedings _____ (4) Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity _________ Co Limited Divorce-Separation from Bed and Board 3. Two Judgments-Three States ______________________ divorce actions ___________________________

258 259 261 261 262 263 263 263

§ 72.


§ 79. § 80.

Adjudication of divorce court's jurisdiction _____ 264 Effects of Valid Foreign Divorce ____________________ 265 a. Prohibition of Etemarriage ______________________ 265 b. Termination of Support Rights-The Estin Rule __ Termination upon divorce, of support decree under the law of the support court ________ . Survival upon divorce, of support decree under the"law of the support court ___________ Post-divorce support rights ______________________ 265 266 267 268 269 269 270 271 272 272

§. 73. B. International Jurisdiction (Extranational Divorces) ______ .. 1. The New York RUle- _______________________________ In general _____________________________________ divorces ______________________________ 2. Other States ______________________________________ Domicile requirement ____ -'_.... __________________ The rendering authority _______________________ states ----- ______________________________



§ 81. Second- Sub-chapter. Support ______________________________________ § 82. A. LoeaJ. Jurisdiction· ______________________________________ Unifonn Legislation ------------------_____________ " Preclusion by Foreign Decrees or Statutes _________ B.. Foreign Support Decrees -------------------_____________ § 83. 1. "Extranational Decrees -----------------_____________
Ehrmlwtlg Conftt-



§ 84.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2. Sister State Decrees _______________________________ 272


a. Enforcement of Decrees as Rendered ___________ 273
),Ubnony _____________ ____________ (2) Current Support ___________________________ (3) Widow's and Family Allowances ____________ Modification ___________________________________ ______________________________ tTniform (1)
~ccrued ~


273 275 275 276 277

." .

§ 10l•. Introduction ________________________________________________ Page 307
A. The Law of the Forum-Basic Rule ____________________ 1. The Law of the, Forum versus Pseudo Conflicts -_____ Types of conflicts ______________________________ "Confiicts" resulting from accidental formulation "Conflicts" in the absence of confiicting laws ___ 2. The Law of the Forum versus Pseudo Rules _________ § 103. a. "Governing" rules ____________ --________________
Shorthand stntement for Interpretation: unilatcrnl
and universal rules




Possible reform? ___________________________ Bar and Merger' _________________________________ Spouses ___________________________________ ____________________________________

278 279 279 279

I' 102.

I 86. A. Local

Third Sub-chapter. Children's Custody _____________________________ 281 Jurisdiction ______________________________________ "281 B. Foreign Custody Decrees ________________________________ 283 1. Extranational Decrees _____________________________ 283 "Comity", "jurisdiction", and "change of circum- 283 stances" _____________________________________ "Clean hands" _______________________ - _________ 285
SUInIDBr,y ______________________________________

S09 309 309 310 310 311 311



b. The law of the forum in the courts _______________ 313
Conec:t1on of. and acquiescence In, psenrln mles: a.anlyticall:y (though not quantitatively) hasie character of lex fori: the law of the proper forum


§ 87.


Sister State Decrees _______________________________ 287 a_ !lbtor,y ________________________________________ 287 b. Docbine _______________________________________ '289 (1) Nonrecognition - ___________________________ 289 "No jurisdiction" ______________________ '289 "Change of circumstances" _____________ 289 "Independent'~ investigation: the Kansas rule _______________________________ 290
(2) Recognition ______________________________ 291

The law of the forum in history __________________ 315
Superior orders and forum's self.lImItatlon; fllllng
the vacuum; Beale

"omCinJ.'· formulas-from d'ArgentM


§ 108. §" 10'1. § 108. §' 109.

'(I) The Continent _____________________________ (2) England and the United States ______________ d:. Summary: The law of the proper foram _________ 3". of Law _____________________________________________ The Law of the Forum in the "Structure" of Choice
Characterization. localization, conuecting factor. preliminary qoestioo. secondary characterlzatioo. renvoi. and public polleT

317 323 325


c. Court Practice ________________________________ 293
§ 88. § 89.
(1) The Rule: "Clean Hands'~ ___________________ 298



Exceptions _______________________ 297




________________________________ 327 327


Modification despite petitioner's unclean hands _______________________________ 297 Nonenforcement despite respondent's unclean hands. _________________________ 298' Recognition regardless of clean hands- __ 298 Conclusions, ___________________________ 299 Fourth Sub-ehapter.. Annulment ___________________________________ . § 90. A. Terminology ___________________________________________ § 91. B. Loeal Jurisdiction ___________________________________ §- 92". C. Foreip Annulments. ____________________________ 300 300 301 304

§ 111. 1"112. § 113. I 114.

I lIS-. I 116.

(1) Harmless but unnecessary synonym of interpretation of formulated rules ____________ (2) "Legal ideas" as the harmful basis of unconsidered rules ____________________________ "Legal ideas'" __________________________ Lex fori or lex causae? __ --_____________ .(3) Origin of the doctrine ______________________ (4) problenas ___________________________ "Procedure" ___________________________ Equitable conversion __________________ b. ______________ --_--_________________ c. llenvoi _________________________________________


328 328 328 330 331 331 332 333 334

§§ 93-100.



(1) Remission (renvoi to the lex fori) ___________ 335

theory: problem ot Interpretation; deference to foreign sovereign; the· Schneider' case; law of contracts

case: ac:eeptanee, reJeetfon, and foreign court


§ 117..
Judge Frank; the Supreme Court and the Federal Torts Olalms Act


(2) Transmission (renvoi to a foreign law) ______ 3S8

§ 129.

(3) Proof _________________ --___________________ Page 364 Need to prove _________________________ 364 ,


§ 118. § ~. § l.2O~

d. The "preliminary question" _____________________ 340 e. Failure to plead or prove the foreign law or a connecting factor ___________________________ 341 f. Public policy, ordre public, and "fraud on the law" _ 342 (1) Dogmatic expansion ----- __________________ 342
llancinl ; vested rights; Restatement


Judicial notice: "rudimentary contracts and torts": "general principles of law recognized by

cl.vlllzed nations"

Mechanics of proof ____________________ 365 Proof of civil law ______________________ 366 Failure of proof _______________________ 366
DIsmissal: presumption ot Identity: lex fori: California

wrongtul death statutes:

(2) Functional limitation ______________________ Lex fori ______________________________ The substituted rule ____________________ Avoidance of domestic law (fraus legis, fraude a. la loi) ______________________ The Law of the Forum Displaced ________________________ 1. Current Doctrine __________________________________ a.
§ 122.

344 344 345 345 347 347

§§ 130-134.


Chapter Five PERSONS First Sub-chapter. General Problems _______________________________ 369 § 135. A. "Status'~ and Its "Incidents" ____________________________ 369 Status _____________________________________________ 369
Personal la\\"8; CommentatoES; Austin; "publlc law"; Stol7; Dicey


"Neorealism" and uneoidealism": justice, adjust. ment and philosophy ________________________ 347 uNeocomity": "governmental interests" _________ 348
Catalogues of Interests; polley IUld Interest, judge IUld legIslature. "legitimate Interests"

Incidents __________________________________________ 371 371 371 372 372 373 374 374 '



c. uNeonihiIism": the Second Restatement _________ 351 2. The Choice'bf Law ~ _________________________________ 352 a. Choice of law in general ________________________ 352 b.
"Law ot the proper forum:" formulated rules; "true rules" Choice of forum law (herein of "procedure") _____ Access to the court _________________________ Right to jury trial _________________________ Burden of proof and presumptions __________ Admission of testimony-privileges ________ Counsel fees _______________________________ Enforcement _______________________________ Specific performance; exemption statutes "llost significant relationship; conflicts "authorities" without conflict; language ond facts

§, 124..

Foreign status unknown to the common law _________ "Status" and "persons" ____________________________ The "Personal Law" ____________________________________ '§ 136. B. Nationality and domicile ___________________________ Capacity __________________________________________ NaIne _____________________________________________ "Juristic persons" _________________________________


§ 125-:

354 354 354 355 355 357 357 358 358' 359 359 359 360 360 361 362' 362

Second Sub-chapter. Domestic Relations§ 137. A. Engagement to Marry __________________________________ 375 lJ. _______________________________________________ 376 1. "alidity ___________________________________________ 376

§ 138.

a.. "Official doctrine" (law of celebration or domicile) _ 376
The Church; England; from Chancellor Kent to Justice Grey. Beale, and the "state of paramount Interest"

§ 139.

b. The Rule of "aIidation ______________ - ___________ 378
Statement ot the Rule; possible objectlODB (1) Form requirements ________________________ 379

§ 126. § 127.

§ 128.

Choice of foreign law ____________________________ Sources ____________________________________ Organization of analysis ___________________ d. Finding of foreign law __________________________ (1) General theory ____________________________ "ested rights - ________________________ Foreign law-fact o~ law? ____ :.. ________ Fo~ign "law"-found or made? ________ ConStitutionality of tire foreign rule ___ (2) Pleading ___________________________________
Dlsmlssal for failure to plead; foreign law applied ex ofllcio; lex fOri; judicial notice; California XXIV



In general; common law marriages

(2) Substantive requirements (capacity) ________ 381 Factual consent _______________________ 381
Duress; fraud. simulation: mistake

Legal capacity ________________________ 382
Valid where celebrated: lDvalld where celebrated

Two marriages -------- _________ '- _______________ 384
prohibition against remarriage; lDterlocutory divorce decrees

§ 139.


Pag. Exceptions to the Rule of Validation _____________ 386 ForuIQ marriage __________________________ 386 Foreign marriage __________________________ 386
Polygamy; ineest; mlseel;enatlon: evasion


§ 145.
" •

TABLE OF CONTENTS Pago 1. General Problems _________________________________ 411 Personal law in general _______________________ 411
Pseudo-foreign corporations; "commercial domiclJeW

§ 140.


''Incidents'' _______________________________________ . 387

§ 146.
Support; stipulation 8fW,inst marringe; contract to procure divorce; gift to paramour; suit between spouses; antenupa tIa1 and postnuptial agreements

The law of incorporation ______________________ 412 2. Corporate "Capacity" ______________________________ 413 Extension of foreign powers ("ultra vir~') ___ 413
Charter power; powers of oftlcers

§ 141. C. Children and Parents ___________________________________ 390
1. Legitimacy and Legitimation _______________________ 391


Linrltation of foreign powers __________________ 415 Blue Sky Laws in particular ___________________ 416 _____________ ___________________________ 417

a. Legitimacy through birth in lawful wedlock _____ 391
b. Legitimation____________________________________ ment by valid marriage or acknowledgSubsequent marriage _______________________ Governmental act __________________________ Father's act _______________________________ 392 392 393 393

§ 147.

3. Members Inter Se and in Relation to the Corporation _ 417 Acquisition of membership ___________________ 417
OrigilUli; derivative: international con1l1cts

§ 148.

c. Legitimacy through birth from, or legitimation by, attempted marriage _________________________ 395

Right to vote _________________________________ 418 4. Members and Third Parties ________________________ 419 a. Suits against third parties _____________________ 419
Derivative {lnd representatlve suits; fiduciary dudes

d. "Incidents" of !egitiJ~~~~~~Lti~'n (inheritance) _ .... .-.~~-------- 396
Incidents nnd "statns" ;':'. D C8nce"); "recoguized" dft

§ 142.'

2. IDegitimacy _ _ _ _ _ .

I: 11"



Suits by third parties __________________________ 420 Illegal dividends __________________________ 421

Jurisdiction ____ . Paterni?, .. Capacity to su&.


Releas& agreem

,ilil'r-. i.~.~--.·-.·-------.-_.

- . ~~________ 398 ____________ 399 399

.. .:


Shareholders' Jiability for corporate debts __ 421 § 149. B. Unincorporated Associations ___________________________ 42S
Personality; contractual and tort llnblllty; public rt!cord

§ 150. C. Property and Enterprise as Legal Entities ______________ 425
-Fonds" and foundation; llQ&iachwsetts trust; enterprise; "estate"; fraudulent (:un\'e'y"'l('~


400 ~ _______ 401 401 401 401 402 402

.. ___ ~-------- 399

§§ 151-159. (Vacant).
Chapter Six OBLIGATIONS First Sub-ehapter.- General Problems ______________________________ §.160. A. Termination ______________________________________ 1. Statute of Limitations ____________________________ a. Lex fori _____________________________________
Chillaw; substance or-procedure; the original st:lto~; Story


Foreign judgments ________________________ b. Support claims· _________________________________ Uniform Act ______________________________ Release agreements ________________________ Adoption ----- ______________________________________
Status and Incidents; Sister states; extranational

Blood tests; excePtiOoZil fi~~'f patemitatis-




§ 143. D. Family Support in General ______________________________ 405' Common law ________________________________________ 405 Act _______________________________________ 406

b. §'16L

Lex causae' ____________________________________ 480

Right of "election;" amendments; reform?

.(1) Shorter foreign linUtations ___ --------_____ 480 Borrowing statutes ____________ -:-______ 4SO

International conflicts _______________________________ 408 Third Sub-ehapter. "Juristic Persons" (Associations and Other Entities) ____________________________._,: _________________ § 144•. _____________________________ _________________ Concept of personality ________________________________ Law "governing" personality __________________________ Jl. Corporations __________________________________________
ln~uction ~

408 408 408 410 411

f 162.
§ 163.


"Built-in" limitation _______________ Suggested approach __________________ Stipulations _____ _____________________ (2) Longer foreign limitations ___________..;_____ A better lawt' ________________________________
Un.iform legislation; international con111cts; contlicts XXVII

Place of "acerual"; tolling provisions; characterization

481 431 483 488. 434-



TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page § 164. 2. Set-off and Counterclaim ___________________________ 486 § 165. B. ______________________________________________ 488 § 166. 1. 1701untar.y ____________________________ 488


§ 174.


Contractual and proprIetary' relations; capacltr; form requirements; the Rule of Validation

2. Transfer by _______________________________________ tion) Operation of Law (Herein of SubrogaContracts _____________________________________ Torts ________________________________________ Wormen's eompensation _____________________ § 168. C. Third party Effects (Herein of Agency, Third party Beneficiaries, and Vicarious Liability) ________________ § 169. 1. ___________________________________________ § 167.

440 440 441 442 44S

§ 175.

·of defeat: Auten, the Second Restatement, "the proper law", and the Uniform Commercial Code _____________ (5) The law: "A proper law" versus "the proper law", the Rule of Validation _____ .:. 2. The Rule of Validation (Lex Validitatis) ___________ a. HiStory, comparison and outlook ________________
Earl,. codes; England; American writers; the case law: the Supreme Oourt



. 468

464 465 465 467 467 467 470 470 471 478

§ 176. § 177.


Rule of VaUdation; powers of attomey




authorit,y ______________________________ 445 Factual authorit,y _________________________ 445 _______________________________ Legal authority ___________________________ 445

b. 17alidation: The rule __________________________ (1) 17alidating intent in general ________________ , Express stipulation: professio juris __ "Implied" intention __________________ (2) Form requirements ________________________ History and "official doctrine" _______ .:. The Jaw ______________________________
Bule of Validation; land contracts; exceptional invalidation


§ 178.

(8) Capacity to contract ______________________ 475

"Legal representatives;" Uproeura"; master of sblp

Factual incapacity; Storr; Rule of Validation

b. LaCk and appearance of authorit,y ______________ 446 2. 1fhird party Beneficiaries __________________________ 448
Lex contractus; "most significant relatlonshlp;" Rule of Vall·

._ § 179. § 180. § 181.
. .. ..:..

.. Married women ______________________ 477

Boman and Engllsh lex fort


OerDlaDlc low; factor's aets;



_=<!~.·;:I-~It!..IRti··~~:·:an;ts;i-:-:--~d~tb~i~Pi~titi~s-::: 479 !~~ . of consideration ________________


§ 170.

8. 17icarious Liability ________________________________ 449 ·Official doctrine _______________________________ 449
Place of wrong; "reasonable" ltablllty; Scheer doctrine
~ e






lalV _____________________________________ 452 458 453 458 454 454 455 458 458 459 459 459 460 460

§ 182.

contracts _____________________ 'provisions _________________ OU"lnllf'''' sales ________ . __________________ contracts __________________ contracts ____________________
aUeged rule of volldntion: adhesion con· "substllntial relntionsblp;" lex tor!

480 481 481 482 482

Second Sub-c:hapter. Contr8ets _____________________________________ Introduction ______________________________________________ 1. General Scope of Analysis __________________________ § 171. 2. ~dhesion Contracts Distinguished __________________ § 172. "From contract to status" _____________________ Stipulation of applicable law: professio juris __ The applicable law: Whose status? ____________ A. Validity of the Contract _______________________________ 1. "Official -doctrine" _________________________________ § 173. .a. 'Europe _______________________________________ "The Continent -- __________________________ -_________________________________ b. United States _________________________________ § 174.


§ 183.

c. Invalidation: The exception -------- __________... ·485 (1) Invalidation under forum law ______________ 485 In general ___________________________ 485 487 488 490 491 491 491 492 492 492

Forfeiture clauses ___________________ ~ (2) Invalidation under foreign law _____________ B. Scope of the Contraet __________________________________ § 185. 1. Official Doctrine: "Performance" __________________ Lex solutionis ---_____________________________ "The.most significant relationship" ____________ "Minute .detailsof .performance" ______________ § 186. 2. .The Law - _________________________________________ JL lngenenU ----_________ ______________________
§ 184.

(1) ~e parties' intent: From Story:to Jackson 460 (2) The lex contractus: Holmes and the (First) Restatement ___________________________ 461 (3) The defeat of official doctrine _______ ! _____ 462
AlI-lnc1usive E!%ceptioDS; where 18 the place of con·

No unitary 10rmuJa'; the Louis·Dreyfus case; mode of performance .

§ 187.

b. Interpretation and construction ________________ 498 c. 'Subsequent modification (herein of breach) _____ 497
Implied warranties; notice of breach; place of breach XXIX



§ 188.

0r t 498c. n·ISCh oluntaryhe Contract ______________________________ Page 1. Jlct ____________________________________ 499

4. §.205.

TABLE- OF· CONTENTS lCmployEnent ______________________________________ Page524
Needed d1st1nctions: place of service; Rule of Valldatlon

§ 189. t 190. §

a. Perfortnance __________________________________ 499
b. ltelease _______________________________________ 500 Tort obligations __________________________ 500 Contractual obligations ___________________ 501 2. Operation of Law (Herein of illegality) _____________ 502
ImpossiblUty In general: supervening regulatory laws: novation
" •


§ 192§ 193.;

Damages for Breach ___________________________________ 504 1. "Official Doctrine" _________________________________ 504
Comparative law and history: "substitute theory:" characterization

"Master and servant" (dependent employees) __ (1) Freedom of employEnent ___________________ "Right to work" _____________________ i\greement not to compete ___________ Discrimination _______________________ (2) VVages and discharge ______________ ~-----JlssigDlnent ________________ Jldvances ____________________________

525 525 525 526 526 526 526 526 Vacations and overtime _______________ 527 ____________________________ 527

§ 194.'
§ 195.:

Re-contracting _______________________________ 507 S. lexceptions: Lex Causae ___________________________ 508
Land; foreign correney; liquidated damages

2. The Rule: Lex Fori ________________________________ 505 Consequential damages _______________________ 506 Mitigation of damages ________________________ 507'
§ 206.

(3) Limitation of liability (pretort release) ____ "Choice of law" by the parties ________ Choice of law by the court ____________ b. Principal and agent (independent employees) ____ In general _______________________________

528 528 529 529 529

Real estate brokers _______________________ 529

4. Interest ___________________________________________ 510 § 207.

5. Transportation ____________________________________ 532
a. Limitation of carrier's liability _________________ 533 (l) Nonadhesion contracts ____________________ 533 (2) Jldhesion contracts _______________________ 534
(3) StBtmtes ________________________________
~ : ~ 3

Stockbrokers; attorneys and physicians __ 532

§§- 19~200. (Vacant). §; 20L E. Particular Contracts ___________________________________ 511 1. Insurance --- ______________________________________ 511

a. N onadhesion contracts (ocean marine, reinsurance, group) ___________________________ 512 Choice of law by the parties _______________ 512 Choice of law by the court _________________ 513
Insurer's principal establishment; lex fori and Rule of Validation

§. 208..

b. Limitation of shipowner's liability _____________ 5S6 c. Other questions _________________________ 536 6. Procedural-Agreements __________________________ 537
Advance payments: eumptfODS; confession of Judgment; commerclal arbltratioA

§ 202.

b. Adhesion contracts ____________________________ 514
Stipulation of applicable law: lex tori: lex domicll11

§§. 209-210.


(1) IJfe ___________________________ 516 (2) Property Dasuranc& _______________________ 517 (3) Liability insurance ________________________ 518 guests ______________________ 518

Third Sub-ehapter. Torts __..________________ ..__.... ________________ 541 § 211. A. General IntroductiOD __________________________________ 541 1. History _________________ ..________ ..________________ 541
a. The law of the forum _________________________ 541

Foreseeable laws (domleUe. garage) vel'8U8 lex dellctl

§ 203.

Direct action statutes ________ ::._________ Suretyship ________________________________________ &e. "Official doctrine" ____________________________ Validity __________________________________ Incidents --______________________

519 520 520' 521 521
5 ~

.(1) England and the Continent __ ~------------ 541 .(2) United States _______ .. _.... ____ = ____________ 542
From StorT and lex tori to vested. rights and the place of wroug ru.l&

§ 204.

law ______________________________________

b. The law of the ''place of wrong" -______________ 548 (1) From foreign defense to foreign claim -____ 548

Rule of Valldation; fndlvldual and ~ transactlons 3. Loans -____________________________________________ 523

Foreign defenses ____________________ 54S Foreign· claims _______________________ 544



Rule of Valldatlon; individual and mass transaetions· inter. natfonalloans; stock exchang& • XXX


(2) From place of conduct to place of harm ---- 545 (3). Place-of harm: orpiace of death? ___________ 546 "The- proper law" _____________________________ 548


§' 212.

Scope and Plan of Analysis _________________________ a. Admonition versus compensation ______________ b. Foreign "data" and rules of decision __________ Co Substance and "procedure" ____________________ (1) In general -- ______________________________
Joinder of tortteasors and IDSUl'er; presumptions ; other problems



§ 220.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ,(2) Guest statutes ____________________________ 577 ltationale ____________________________ 577

548 549 549 549



Case law _____________________________ 574 A better law? ________________________ 580 (3) Inununit,y _________________________________ 581 Spouses and parents _________________ 581
From place of w.rong to Emel'1 and Haumsch1ld

Standard of care: ingratitude: collusion

§ 213.

(2) Damages and interest _____________________ 551 In general ___________________________ 551 deatn _____________________ 552

Charitable institutions ________________ 583
§ 222.

Early hostility; a new "common law;" characterization (procedure, contract); the IOlberg doctrine; suaunary

Federal Tort Claims Act ______________ 556 Interest ______________________________ 556
§ 214.
Lex actus and renvoi (Richards doctrine)

b. Other traffic accidents _____ -____________________ (1) Land car.riers _____________________________ (2) carriers ________________________ (3) Air carriers ______________________________

Lex loel,versus the ''foreseeable law"

584 585 585

(Vacant). Be. Intentional Torts ("Wrongs" or "DeUc:ts") ______________ 557 1. Alienation of Affections ___________________________ 557 § 215. 2. Malicious Prosecution _____________________________ 558

§ 223.

3. Fraud -________ ~---------------------------------4. Conversion _______________________________________ 5. Unfair Competition and Tradem~ks ______________ 6. Antitrust and Fair Trade _____': __ : _________________ 7. Dram Shop Acts __________________________________ 8. Interference with Contractual Relations and "In_ jurious Falsehood" _____________________________ 9. Other "Wrongs" -- ________________________________
Assault and battery; dnmage to property; gross negligence

558 559
560 561 562

§ 224.


§ 225.

§ 216.

10. Defamation and Invasion of Privacy- by Mass Publication ._____________________________________ 564 "Official doctrine" _______________ .. ___________ 564
Place of "communication;" competing "rules"

§ 226. Fourth Sub-c:hapter. Other Obligations _____________________________ 598 § 227. A. Restitution ___________________________________________ 598 1. "Official Doctrine" ________________________________ 598
a. Foreign doctrine ______________________________ b. English legislation _____________________________ c. The Restatements _____________________________ "Pre-existing relationship" ________ ~ ______ Absence of "pre-existing relationship" _____ 2. The Law __________________________________________ a. analysis ______________________________ fori _________________________________ Reliance on foreign law ___________________

3. Products lJabiJity _________________________________ 587 a. "Official doctrine" _____________________________ 588 b. ______________________________________ 590 Rationale ________________________________ 590 Proposed rule ____________________________ 592 4. Other Accident Liabilities. __________________________ 593 Keeping dogs _________________________________ 593 Blasting and other ultrahazardous activities --- '594 Hospitals and physicians ______________________ 594 5. Redistribution of Accident Loss ____________________ 594 "Splitting" causes of action ____________________ 595 Contribution among tortfeasors _______________ 595 6. Summary and Outlook _____________________________ 596

"Characterization;" Death on the mgb Seas; Warsa\v

Lex fori _____________________________________ 566

"nestitution;" unjust enrlclunent; "injustice" as basic element

Herein also of statutes ofllmitatlons and punitive dQIDages

A better law? -______________________________ C. Ac:cidents (Enterprise Liability) _______________________ 1. EUstory and Comparison ___________________________ § 217. 2. Traffic Accidents __________________________________ § 218.
Yegllgence; contributory negllgence


567 570

599 599 600 600 601

601 601

§ 219.

a. Automobiles _______________ ------------------ 573 (1) Owners liability __________________________ 573
Lex fori (Scheer, Levy) versus lex loci


b. Specific transactions -----------_______________ 602
Contribution among tortfeasors: subrogation; maritime assistance and salvage; negotiorum gestio; constructive trusts; land contracts

Case law -____________________________ 574 Rationale ____________________________ 575
Consent and "foreseeable laws"






§ 228.

Compensation ' B. Workmen's parties _____ ----------------------------- Page Third 604

§ 235.

Intert~poral confli~;---------------------------- 604

§§ 229-230.

International contil ts --------------------------- 605 (1racant). c ---------------------------- 605 Chapter Seven

§ 236. •

(2) "General assignments'P and individual transfers ____________ ------------------------ 619 2. Derivative Acquisition of an Interest (Transfer) ---- 620 a. Transfer of title (herein of sales) _______________ 620 "alidit,y __________________________________ 620 Stoppage in transit _______________________ 621 passing of title and risk __________________ 621 ________________________________ 622

First~Sub-ehapter. Transactions Inter V· § 23L A. Land IVOS -----------------------1.. ~-si~-------------------~---------------------__________________________ § 232. a. ~r.Y-~d-~ti~~~~~-------------------------From personal law to lex sltt • t: ty and pollee laws. to certa~~'ty ro;atf~l1daIlsm. sovereignjurisdiction; the Supreme Court 0 et land taboo, and

§ 23'1.

606 607 607

b. SecUJit,v tr.ansactions _______ ------------------- 623 "aUdit" __________________________________ Repossession and redemption _____________ 623 ~ ~sts ________________________ ---------------- 625 So Original Acquisition of an Interest _____ ~ ___________ 625
a. Bona fide purchasers __________________________ 626 .(l) In general ________________________________ 626
Roman-English versus Germanic tradltlon; statement compromise

§ 238.

FInding; adverse possession; fiXtures: expropriation

b. General meaning and scope ____ .
Renvoi; "situs;" "land" (equitabI ---------------- 607 easements) e conversion. fixtures ADd

§ 239.

,<2) Automobiles __________________ ------------ 62'1 The conflict __________________________ 627

2. a. Conveyan~;;----------------------------------- 608 Transactions (1) Deeds ---------------------------------- 609
Title. requirements. capacity. Interpretation

Otmer's protection; "full·title" nnd "lncomple~ title" stlltUtes


"Official doctrine" ___________________ 629 The law _________ --------------------- 630


(2) Mortgages_

unreasonable increase ot risk; used car dealer; attllcblng creditor; the state; repair-and warehoUSeman

::~=jU~~e!r:sterpretat1on;c fO~:~:--a:~--~~• olson doctrine; Rule of

§ 240. .

(3) Other chattels ______-------------------- 631
BeeOrdatton (sb1ps and cattle): pledges

§ 233.:

b. Coveuants ~ ~d con~~--------------------------------- 612 Lex situs and lex ~:~~-.--p--------------------- 612

Bona fide purchaser protected under lex . _.' fori ______ ------------------------- 632 . Owner protected under lex fori -------- 633 Purchaser's reimbursement ___________ 638

§ 234. .

d. Other transactions



----------------------------- 614
614 § 241.
§ 242. C.

(4) A better law? _________ -------------------- 634
commercial and noncommercial purchaSers dlstiD~ed .

~ ~ttebJ
§ 235.



IJens _______ ----------------------------------- 615 ------------------------------ 616

Intangibles (Herein of Assignments and Trusts) -------- 635·

b. 1Joeal creditors -------------------------------p


a. "Official d~iri-;;;,.----------------------------- 616 (1) From personaii;;~~ghi~--;----------- 61'1


1. Assignment ____________________--------------- 636

Les altus. lex dom1clW. and the ''most slgD1Aeant relatloDSh1


(8) Otner p~;~d~--~bi------------------------ 61'1 Fall falth P ems --::.---------------- 618
tlon; ren.::::d credlt; interpretation and coustruc-

personal law SItus back to (2) From mob~ -------------------------- 617 situs. sequuntur pers0DAln: to lex

general _____________-----------...---------- 636 Doctrine and law ___ .._____-------------- 636 Accounts receivable ______________________ 687

b. __ ------------------------------- 638 "Law of the debt;JI contract and tort clalJnB c. Successive assignments ________________________ .639-


§ 243".

Priority among successive assignees ------ 640 Debtor's discharge ________________________ 641

b.. Needed distinctions (1) In general ______________ --------------------------- 619 619

d.. Creditor's protection' ___----------------------- 641.


§ 244.

TABLE OF (JONTENTS· 2. IJving _____________________________________ a. Validity _________________________ ;. ____________ Law of Validation _______________________ International conflicts _____________________ b. Construction __________________________________ c. Administration ________________________________ d. Prevention of conflicts _________________________



642 642 644 645 645 647

§ 248.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ,(2) Testamentary capacity ___________________ 667 Capacity to dispose __________________ 667 Capacity to receive ___________________ 668

.' •

Oharities; corporations; unborn chlldren ;

(3) Prohibited bequests _______________________ 669 Charitable bequests __________________ 669

§ 2"45. D. Marital Property: Selected Problems ___________________ 647 1. The General Rule _________________________________ 648
Domfc1le nt marriage; lIutablllty

§ 249.

b. c.


Immovables _______________________________________ 649 In general ___________________________________ 649

Other restraints of alienation --------(4) Exercise of "powers of appointment -------Interpretation and construction ________________ Revocation ____________________________________ Subsequent will _________ ----------------Implied revocation ________________________
Destruction by testntor. others or accident

669 670 671 673 673 673


The "source" doctrine ________________________ 649 _________________________________________ 650

Operation of law _________________________ 674




Common law rights in community property states 650 Community property rights in common law states 651 Tort cIabns ___________________________________ 652
Imputed negligence; Indispensable party: charge ngninst


Birth. adoption, marringe, divorce

________________________________________ 675 675 676 677 678 678 678


Second Sub-ehapter. Succession ____________________________________ 653 § 246. A. Introduction __________________________________________ 653 1. uOfficial Doctrine" ________________________________ 653
Land: lex situs; movnblcs; lex dOlnlcilU

§ 250.

3. Anti-testate Succession (Forced Heirship) --------Spouses _______________ -- _____________________ ])escendants __________________________ ~ _______ 4. AdlDdnistration ___________________________ --------a. The business of administration ________________ b. Beneficiaries and creditors ____________________


General Problems ________________________________ 655 a. Proof of death _______________________________ 655 b. Civil and common law _________________________ 656
Unf\"ersnl succession; trusts

INDICES: ______________________________________________________ 681 Cases iluthors ______________________________________________________ 749 Subject ~atter ________________________ ------------------------ 759


c. Characterization and renvoi ____________________ 656 Ittunovables ___________________________________________ 658 1. General Theory _________: __________________________ 2. Intestate Succession ______________________________ 3. Testate Succession (Wills and Trusts) _____________ FornuU validity ______________________________ Substantive validity __________________________
Testntor's and devisee's capacity; restraints of alienation

§ 247.

658 659 660 660 661

Interpretation and construction- ________________ 661 Revocation" ____ .,. ______________________________ 662 4. Anti-testate Succession (Forced Heirship) _________ 663
Forced shares; election; family allowance; homesteads

5. Administration ___________________________________ 668 ftiovables _____________________________________ ;.________ 665 1. Intestate Succession _______________________________ 665 2. Testate Succession (Wills and Trusts) ___________ ~ 666 a. Validity __________ ___ ______ ___________________ 666 (1) Fo1'D;l requirements _______________________ 666

§ 248.



In additioD to the standard abbreviations of per!odicals pubUshed in English

Abh. I PR: Ahhnndlnngen zum Internationnlen Prlvatrecht Acta Jur.: Acrn Jurfdlcn.(Budapest) Ann. Fr.: Annuaire Fran~ de droit internndonlll (Parts) Ann.I.D.I.: Annunire de ,'lnstltut de droit international (Dasle) Arch. Clv. Pr.: Archiv fOr die clvtustlsche Praxis (TIlblngen) Bull. Tch6cosl.: Bulletin de droit tchecoslovnque(Prngue) Clunet: Journal dn droit international (nntil lOB Journnl du droit int('rnntional prtv~ et de In jurh;pnldenoo eom~ (Paris) Com. e Studl: ComunieuiODl e studi dell'Ist1tuto di dlritto fnternnzlonnle e straDiero dell'Unh'ersitil. ill Milano Cuaderaos: Cundemos de derecho onglo-americnno (nn~lona) Cursos: Academia interamer1caua. de derecho l"Ompanu.lo e internncionnl, Cursos llonogniftcos • Dlr. Iat.: Dlritto Internozlonale (Milan) Glurlspr.: Giurisprudenza comparata di dritto internazionnle privato (Rome) Jahrb. lat. R.: Jabrbueb fUr internationales Recht (Guttlngen) J. BI.: JorlstiSche-Blllttel' (Vienna) J. Dr. I at.. see Clunet J. Dr. I nt. P.... see Clunet Jug. Rey. Meet. Pr.: Jugosloveoska. Revija za. lIedunnrodno Prnvo (Beograd) JZ: JurlSteDzeitung (TOblngen) Ned. TIJdscbr. Int. R.: Nederlands Tljdschrift voor internationaal Recht (Leiden) NJW: Neue Juristfsehe Woehenschrtft (Munich nnd Berlin) Neue JUltlZ: Berlin Nord. Trdsskr~ Int. R.: Nordlsk tidsskrift for internnttoual ret (Copenhagen) N. Roy. 01 P: ~ouvelle revue de droit international prtv6 (Pnrls) tiat. J. z.: Osterrelehlsche JuristenzeitoDg (Vienna) tiat. z. Off. R~: Osteneidllsche Ze1tschritt fUr ijjfentllches Recht (Vienna) Rabel. z.: Zeltschrlft fOr ansll1ndlsches und internationales Privatrecht (since 1001 Rabels Zeitsebrift) (BerllD and TQblDgen) Reo.: Aead~e de Drolt lDtemationaI. lleeue11 des CoU1'8 (Lelden) Rov. Crlt.: Revue er1tiqne de droit international prtv6 (succeeding Revue de droit international priv6, 1905-lDM. and Revue critique de droit international, 1034-1947) (Parts) Rev. Crlt. DIP, see Bev. Orlt. Rev. Crlt. Dr. I nt., see Bev. edt. Rey. Cubo: Revtsta cubaDa de deNdlo (Havana) Rov. Dr. Int. &. Comp.: Bevue de droit International et de droit compare (Brussels) Rev. Dr. Int. a. L6;. Comp.: Revue de drolt International et de legislation COlDpaNe (Parts) Rev. £ap.: Revista espa!loIa de derecho Internadonal (lIadrtd) Rev. Hell.: Revue helltWque de droit International (Athens) Rov. I nt. Dr. Comp.: Revue Internationale de droit compare (parts) Rlv. Dlr. Int.: Rlvlsta d1 dlrttto lnternaziODale (Mllan) Sohw. Jb.. Int. R.: Scbwelzerlsches Jahrb1lCh tt1r inte1'Dationaies Recht (Zurich) S.J.z.: Sebwe1zerische JaristeD·Ze1tUDg (Zurich) Svenak Jure: Svensk JudsttldDlDg (Stockholm)
EhrtftlWll9 CorIfIlct of LIllI


Tldsskr. Rettv.: Tidsskr1tt for Rettsvltenskap (Oslo) Travaux: Ooml~ Fr8D~ de droit international priv~ Travaux (Paris) Ugeskr.: Ugeskrlft for Retsvaesen (Copenhagen) Unldrolt: InternatlonallDstltute for the Un11katlon of Private Law (Rome) Z. tat. Pro Str. R.: Zeltsebrlft filr lDternatlonales Privat-und Strafreeht (LeIpzig) (1s. 1902, see Z. Int. R., infra) Z. I nt. R.: Niemeyers Zeitsehrift filr lDternatlonales Becht (BerUn) (1910-1914, following Zeitsehrlft tf1r lDternatlonales Print-ODd Mentllches Becht l~l909, and Z. lD&. Pr.Str.R., supra) Z. fOr RecbtsYorgl.: Zeitscbrlft filr Bechtsverglelehag (Vienna) Z. f. Zlvllpl'01osa: Zeitschrift fUr Zlvilprozess (Berlin) Z. Sobw. R.: Ze1t1chr1ft fOr Schwe1zer1sches Becht (Basle)

Abbrooiations ere in.ltalic8. For older works Bee 1 Beale, Ccmfl,ict of (1986) twii-c:J:ii ,;.'

A. American Treatises L Modem texts Beale. The Conflie! of Laws (1985) (8 vols.) Cook, The Logical and Legal Bases of the Conflict of Laws (1942) Goodrich, Conflict of Laws (8d ed. 1949) Kuhn,· Comparative Commentaries on Private International Law (1987) Leflar, Arkansas Law of Conflict of Laws (1988) Lefl,a:r., The Law of Conflict of Laws (1959) Lorenzen., Selected Articles on the Conflict of Laws (1947) Nussba.um, Principles of Private International Law (1948) Rabel, The Conflict of Laws, A Comparative Study (Vol. I and n, 2d ed. 1958, 1960; Vol. m and IV, 1st ed. 1950 and 1958) Rest.: American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law of Conflict of Laws (1984, Supplement 1948) Rest. Continued: American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law Continued, Conflict of Laws, Tent. Drafts No.1 (1968); No.2 (1954) Rest. Second: American Law Institute, Restatement of the ~w Second, Conflict of Laws, Tent. Drafts No.8 (1956); No.4 (1967); No.6 (1959); No.6 (1960); Draft No.7 (1962) Stumberg, Conflict of Laws (2d ed.1951) Wigny, Expose du Droit International Prive Americain (1937) 2. Older texts Gardner, Institutes of International Law, Public and Private, as Settled by the Supreme Court of the United States, and by, our Republic (1860) Kent, Commentaries on American Law (1826-1880) (vol. 2) Livermoret •. Dissertations on the Questions which Arise from the Contrariety of the Positive Laws (1828) Merrill, Studies in Comparative Jurisprudence and the Con1lict of Laws (1886) Minor, Conflict of Laws (1901) Rorer, Inter-State Law (1879) Sto7'1J,·Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws (1st ed. 1984, 8th ed. 1888) Tiernan, Conflict of Laws (1921) Wharton, Conflict of Laws (8d ed. 1905) Wheaton, Elements of International Law (1886)



B. Commonwealth Treatises Baty, Polarized Law (1914) Burge. Commentaries on Colonial and Foreign Laws (1888) Castel, Private International Law (1960) (Canada) Cheshire, Private International Law (6th ed. 1961)

B. Commonwealth Treatises-Continued C~wen, At.nerican-Auatralian Private International Law (1957) ~tC~: Dicey's ConiUct o~ Laws (7th ed. 1958) ixit an~ Ranganath, Pnvate International Law (1960) (India) Falconb~ge, Essays on. the Conflict of Laws (2d ed. 1954) ~?::e, Pnvate. Interna~onal Jurisprudence (1st ed. 1878, 5th ed 1925) 1 ,International Pnvate Law in Scotland in the XVIth d XVU· Centuries (1928) an th Gr41J~80n, The Co~flict o~ Laws (4th ed. 1960) H~dullah, Islam!c Notions of Conflict of Laws (1945) (India) Hamson, On Junsprudence and the Conflict of Laws (1919 ·tt . 1876) , wn en m Henry, The Judgment of the Court of Deme~ etc (1823) HosatS4t Treatise on the Conflict of Laws of England and Scotland
Jo~n~on, The Conflict of Laws (1933-1937) (Canada) Phlll~more, ~ommentaries upon International Law (1854-1857) Rattl~an, P~v~te International Law (1895)


D. Collections 1. Casebooks Castel, Cases, Notes and Materials 011 the Conflict of Laws (1960) (Can.

;' ada) Cheatham. Casebook: Cases and Materials on Conflict of Laws by Cheat· ham. Goodrich, Griswold, and Reese (4th ad. 1957) (Supp.1961) Harper. Taintor, Carnahan. and Brown. Conflict of Laws, Cases and Mate. rials (1950) Inglis, Conflict of Laws (New Zealand 1959) Louisell and Hazard, Pleading and Procedure: State and Federal (1962) Mackinnon, Leading Cases in the International Private Law of Scotland (1934) Morris, Cases on Private International Law (Sd ed. 1960) Stumberg, Cases on the Contlict of Laws (1956) Webb and Brown, A Casebook on the Co~ict of. Laws (1960) Conferences, Symposia etc. Annual Survey of American Law, Conflict of Laws (since 1942) Association. of American Law Schools,. Selected Readings on Conflict of Laws (ed, Culp. 1956) (Set. Read,) Congreso sud-americano de derecho internacional privado, Montevideo 1888-1889,1939-1940 (proceedings) Cursos Monograficos, Inter-American Academy of Comparative and International Law (since 1948) Festschrift, See Melanges Francescakis. Jurisprudence de droit international priri (1961,. (France) (Hague) Conferences on Private International Law (Proceedings and Documents) (since 1893) Harvard Law Review, Selected Essays in Contlict of Laws (1952) Inter-American Council of Jurists. Comparative Study of the Bustamante Code, the- Montevideo Treaties. and. the. Restatement of the Law of Conflict of Laws (1954) International Trade Arbitration (ed. Domke, 1958) Iowa Law Review, Jurisdiction, 44 Iowa L.Rev. 24'1-447 (1959) Journal of Public Law, Transient Jurisdiction, 9 I.Pub.L. 281-337 (1960) Law and Contemporary Problems, The Preventive Law of Conflicts, 21 Law & Cont. Probe 42'1 (1956) . Makarov, Quellen des internationalen Privatrechts (2d ed. 1960) Max_Planck-Institut, Beitrage zum auslindischen mid internationaien Privatreeht (since 1928) (GermanY) Mela.nges (Festschriften) in honor ot the following scholars: Erawa. (1961), Fritzsche (1952), Lewald (1953,., MakaroV (1958), Maury (1960), Perassl (195'1), Raape (1948), Rabel (1954), WoHf (1952), Yntema (1961) Recueil, See Abbreviations of Periodicals R6pertoire de ~it international, vol. 6 (1930) (France) Twentieth Century Comparative- and Conflicts Law, See Melanges in Honor of Yntema Vanderbilt Law RevieW, A Symposium on Contlict of Laws, 6 Vand.L.Rev.

Reddle, InqUiries in International Law (1842)
~h~:hO~ ~ Textbook on. the English Contlict of Laws (ard ed. 1954)

es . e,. nvate International Law (1st ed. 1858, 5th ed 1912) Wolff, Pnvate International Law (2d ed.1950) • C.. Civil Law Treatises in English 1. Translations Bar, The Theory and Practice of Private International Law (G·n • trans. 2d ed. 1892) (Germany) 1 esple .. Bartolus, On the ~on1Uct of Laws (trans. Beale 1914) Huber, De L Legum Diversarum' n' ' ".' [tran Confhctu W. In Iversls Impenis (1684) H b T s. o~enzen, Igmore Celebration Essays 199 (1919)] . u. ~r, he Jun~rudence of nfy Time (5th ed. trans. Gane 1939) Medi. International Civil and Commercial La::w (trans. K uhn 1905) (Switzerland)
SaVign~a!~vate International Law

(trans. Guthrie, 2d ed. 1880) (Ger..

2. Original.Works D.e Becker, Interna~ional Private Law of Japan (1919) Jltta, The Renovation of International Law (1919) Salonga, Private International Law (rev. ed.1952) (Philippines) .3. Bilateral Studies (Nussbaum eeL) Cowen, See supra B
~elaume, Am~can-French P~vate

. :ncan ~ omblan Pnvate International. Law (1956) , G . Ehrenzwelg, FragIStas and Yiannopoulos . Am' national Law (1957) , encan- reek Pnvate InterIkehara and Jensen, Americau-Japanese Private Inte tlonal Law (forthcoming) ma.. Etcheberry' American-Ch'lean Prjvate International Law (1960) G I X':%l=: Ameri~-Brazilian ~rivate Internatfonal Law (1969) NUSBba!':;. Amenc:an-Du~ Pn~ate International Law (2d ed. 1961) Phili A t ~encan~Wl9B .Pnvate International Law (2d ed•. 1958) p, mencan-Damsh Private- International Law (1957)

E::~m?n~-~.. ~vate Relations Cases 1945-1956 (1956)

International Law (2d ed. 1961)

Wiemann, hagen. des internationalen Privatrechts .(eL 1958) (Eastem

441 (1953)

E. Leading Treatises in Foreign Languages Ago, Lezioni di diritto internaziona1e privato (1989, rep. 1966) (Italy) .Alb6nico Valenzuela. 14anual de derecho internacional l>rivado (1960) (Chile) Aguilar Navarro, Derecbo internaclonal privado (1966) (Spain) Alcorta, Curso de dereeho internacioual privado (2d ed. 1927) (Argentina)

E. Leading Treatises in Foreign Languages-Continued Kegel,'T62:t, Internationales Privatrecht (1960) (Germany) Kohler, Das internationalePrivatrecht Osterreichs (1959) Kosters, Bet internationaal burgerlijk recht in Nederland (1917) Lain6 Introduction au droit international prive (1888-1892) (France) Lere~urs-Pigeonniere, 'Precis de droit international prive (7th ed. LousBouam 1959) {"France) Lewald, Das deutsche internationale Privatrecht (1981) Lewald, Regles generales des conftits de lois (1941) lAm: 'Internationales Privatrecbt (U.S.S.R.1949-1959, German trans. Wiemann 1961), with bibliography on Eastern-European literature Makarov, Precis de droit international priv~ d'apres 1a l~gislation et la doctrine russes (1982) Maridakis, Idiotikon Diethnes Dikaion (1950-1954) (Greece) Miaja de la Muela, Derecho internacional privado (2d 00.. 1955-1956) (Spain) Melchior, Die Grundlagen des deutschen internationalen Privatrecbts (1982) Michae1i, Internationales Privatrecht gemiss scbwedischem Recht (1948) Monaco, L'efticacia della legge nello spazio (1954) (Italy) 'Morelli, Diritto processuale civile internazionale (2d ea. 1954) (Italy) MoreUi, Elementi di diritto internazionale privato Italiano (6th ed. 1959) Mulder, Inleiding tot het Nederlandsch Internationaal Privaatrecht (2d ed.1947) Nial Internationell formogenhetsrltt (2d ·ed. 1953) (Sweden) Ni~yet, Traite de droit international prive (1988-1961, with Index, ed. Francescakis 1960) Niederer, EinfUbrung in die 1l11gemeinen Lehren des internationalen Privatrechts (2d ed. 1956) (Switzerland) Nussbaum, Deutsches internationales Privatrecht (1932) Nussbaum, GrundzUge des internationalen Privatrechts (1952) (American) Oroe, Derecho internacional privado (3d ed.1952) (Spain) Paredes, Teorla general del derecho civil internacional (1981-1984) (Ecuador) Pereterski and Krylow, Internationales Privatrecbt (U.S.S.R. 2d ed. 1959, German trans. forthcoming) Pillet and Niboyet, Manuel de droit international priv6 (2d ed. 1928) Pontes de Miranda, Direito internacional privado (1935) (Brazil) Poullet, Manuel de droit international prive belge (3d ed. 1947) Qruutri, Lezioni di diritto internazionale privato (3d ed. 1961) (Ital~) B.f14pe, lnternationales Privatrecht (4th ed. 1955) (5th ed. 1961 not avallable before completion of manuscript) (Germany) B.~cui, Interna.tionales Privatrecht (Hungary 1955, German trans. Raresay 1960) Rieder, Internationales Zivilprozessrecht (1949) (Germany) Romero del Prado, Derecho internacional privado (1944) (Argentina) SalazaT Flor, Derecho internacional privado (1955) (Ecuador) Savatier, Cours de droitintp~tional prive (2d ed.1953) (France). Schnitzer, Handbuch des internationalen Privatrechts (4th ed. 1957, 1956) (Switzerland) Siqueiros, Los conftietos de leyes en el systema eonstitucional Mexicano (1957) Stein dorff, Sachnormen im internationalen Privatrecht (1958) (Germany) XLV

Alfonsfn, Ourso de derecho privado internaclonal (1966) (Uruguay) Anzilotti, Corso di diritto internazionale .privato (1926) (Italy) Arce, Derecbo interuacional privado (2d ed. 1965) (Mexico) Arminjon, Pricis de droit internatioual priw (2d ed. 1947-1958) (France) Asser, Elements de droit international prive (Rivier trans. 1884) (Netherlands) Balladore Pallieri, Diritto internazionaJe privato (2d l!d. 1950) .(Italy) Bartin, Principes de droit international prive selon la loi et 1a jurisprudence fran~es (1980, 1985) BaUffo!, Traite Bementaire de droit international prive (3d ed. 1959) (France) Betti, Problematica del diritto internazionale (1956) Blagojevic, Medunarodno privatno pravo (1950) (Yugoslavia) Bolla, Grundriss des osterreichiscben internationalen Privatrecbts (1952) (Austria) Borum, Lovkonflikter (4th ed. 1957) (Denmark) . Van Brakel, Grondslagen en Beginselen van Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecbt (2d ed. 1958)· (Netherlands) Bustamante y Sirven, Derecho internacional privado (1981) (Cuba) Caicedo Castilla, Derecbo internaciooal privado (1949) (Colombia) Cocl{ Arango, Tratado de derecbo internacional privado (1936) (Colombia) . 7' Fedozzi, 11 diritto internazionale privato (2d ed.1939) (Italy) Ficker, Grundfragen des deutschen interlokalen Rechts (1962) Fiore, Diritto internazionale privato (1888-1903) (Italy) Foelix, Traite du droit international priw (4th ed. 1866) (France) Frankenstein, Internationales Privatrecbt (1926-1986) (.Germany) Gihl, Den internationel1a privatrittens historia ocb allmlnna principer (1951) (Sweden) Gjelsvik, Laerebok i millomfolke1eg privatrett (1918) (Norway) Goldschmidt, Sistema y filosofia del derecbo internacional privado (2d ed. 1952-1954) (Spain) Goldschmidt, Suma del derecbo internacional privado (1968) (Argentina) Graulich, Principes de droit international prive (1961) (Belgium) Guldener, Das internationale und interkantonale· Zivilprozessrecht der Schweiz (1951) . Gutzwiller, lnternationalprivatrecbt, Das gesamte deutsche Recht, vol 8 (ed. Stammler 1930) 1517-1664 Herrero y Rubio, Derecho internacional privado (1955) (Spain) Jitta, lnternationaal Privaatrecht (1916) (Netherlands) Kahn, Abhandlungen zum internationalen Privatrecht (1928) (Germany) Karlgren, Internationell privat-och processritt (1950) (Sweden) Kegel, Commentary to Articles 7-31 of the Introductory Law to the German Civil Code, Soergel-Siebert BGB (9th ed. 1961) (~y)










E. Leading Treatises in Foreign Languages-Continued Szaszy, Droit international prive compare (1940) (Egypt) Tenorio, Direito internacional privado (2d ed.1949) (Brazil) Trias de Bes. Derecho internacional privado (2d ed. 1940) (Spain) ValJad3o, Estudos de dereito internacional privado (1947) (Brazil) VareiUe-Sommieres, La synthese du droit international prive (1897) (France) VelAsquez, Directivas fundamentales del derecho internacional privado puertorriqueiio (1945) Venturini, Diritto internazionale privato, Diritti reali ed obligazioni (1956) (Italy) Verplaetse, Derecho internacional privado (1954) (Spain) Vitta. Nozioni di diritto internazionale privato (3d ed. 1960) (Italy) De Vos, Le probleme des conftits de lois (1946) (Belgium) Walker, Internationales Privatrecht (5th ed. 1934) (Austria) Weiss, Traite theorique et pratique de droit international prive (18921905) (France) Wolff, Das internationale Privatrecht Deutschlands (3d ed.1954) De Yanguas lfessia, Derecho internacional privado (1955, 1958) (Spain) Ziccardi, Introduzione critics at diritto internazionale (1956) (Italy) Zitelmann, Internationales Privatrech;;.~9!1-1912l. (Germany)
~ "~::.-' -:-:::_~

7"6-. ..


L~i~ _~_.~_~~ _Z? _~. F. Selected Major Monographs (omitting dissertations, contributions-u:.iill-Fq¢·~cles in periodicals,

except for reprints publishedseparate~ see 'D4ble of Authors) 1. History, Theory and Sources' ..:'~~::~:-:; .... Ballarino, Problemi generali del ~mteiii8iioilale Privato nella recente l~ttemtura tedesca (1958)" :":$#;;$5".%=-- .;... Batiffol, Aspects philosophiques Uo~ prive (1956) Bayitch, Condict Law in-United·StsrtjlZ. _'. iJ.g55:);~;. Cansacchi, Scelta e adattamento- dell*~~e'richiamate (1989) Cassani, L'adeguamento del .diritto:i.~a£ diritto internazionale nell'ordinsJt1ento americano (1961)' . CateUani, II diritto internazionale privato e i suoi recenti progressi (1895, 1902) Cheatham, Problems and Methods in Condict of Laws (1960) Delaume, Les eondits de lois a la veille du code civil (1947) De Nova, II richiamo di ordinamenti plurilegislativi (1940) Donnedieu de Vabres, Les principes modernes du droit penal international (1928) Francescakis, La th60rie du renvoi ·(1958) Gamillscheg, Der Einduss· Dumoulins auf die Entwicklung des Kollisionsrechts (1955) Gannage, Le role de I'equite dans la solution des condits de lois (1949) Gavalda, Les condits dans Ie temps en droit international prive (1955) Giesker-Zeller, Die Rechtsanwendbarkeitsnormen (1914) Gutteridge, The Codification of Private International Law (1951) Gutzwiller, Le developpement historique du droit international prive,29 Recueil291 (1929) Hackett, TheConeept of Public Order (1959) Hoffmeyer, Das internationalprivatrechtliche VorfragenprobJem (1956) Jackson, Full Faith and Credit-The Lawyer's Clause.of the Constitution (1945)

d*-H..-It 5L:= -

F. Selected Major Monographs-Continued 1. History, Theory and Sources-Continued Jessup, Transnational Law (1956) ~-Freund, The Growth of Internationalism in English Private International Law (1960) Kollewijn.. Geschiedenis van de nederlandsche wetenschap van het internationaal privaatrecht tot 1880 (198'1) Kollewijn, Intergentiel Recht (1955) Lagarde, Recherches sur l'ordre public en droit international prive (1959) Level, Essai de systematisation du contlit de lois dans Ie temps (1959) Lloyd, Public Policy (1958) Madsen-Mygdal, Ordre public og territorialitet (1946) Maury, L'6viction de la loi normalementcompetente (1952) Meijers, L'histoire des principes fondamentaux du droit international prive a partir du moyen age, 49 Ree. 545 (1934) Meili, Bartolus als Haupt der ersten Schule des internationalen Strafrechts (1908) MUller, Der Grundsatz des wohlerworbenen Rechts im. intemationalen Privatrecht (1985) Neumeyer, Die gemeinrechtliche Entwickelung des international en Privat- und Strafrechts bis Bartolus (1901, 1916) Neuner, Der Sinn der internationalprivatrechtlichen Norm (1932) Niederer, Die Frage der Qualifikation als Grundproblem des internationalen Privatrechts (1940) Pace, 11 diritto transitorio (1944) Pagenstecher, Der Grundsatz des Entscheidungseinklangs im internationalen Privatrecht (1951) Pius XII, La personnalite et la territorialite des lois (1945) Plaisant, Les regles de condit de lois daDs les traites (1946) Potu, La question du renvoi (1913) Przybylowski, Des problemes d'appJicstion des regles de- condits etrangeres (Polish, French summary, 1959) Rigaux, La. tbeorie des qualifications en droit international prive (1956) Robertson. Characterization in the Condie! of Laws (1940) ROmer, Die Gesetzesumgehung im deutschen internationalen Privatrecht (1955) Roubier, Le droit transitoire (2d ed. 1960) Schmidt, Kvalifikationsproblemet i den internationale privatret (1954) Simitis, Gute Sitten und ordre public (1960) Verplaetse, La. fraude a la loi en droit international priri (1938) Vidal, Essai. d'une theorie generale de la fmude en droit fran~is (1957) Vischer, Die rechtsvergleichenden Tatbestinde im internationalen Privat-recht (1958) Wichser, Der Begriff des wohlerworbenen Rechts im internationalen Privatrecht (1955) Wiebringhaus, Das Gesetz der funktionellen Verdoppelung (1955) Wietholter, Einseitige Kollisionsnormen ala Grundlage des internationalen Privatrechts (1956) Wortley, The General Principles of Private International Law, 94 Rae. 86 (1958) 2. Jurisdiction, Judgments, procedure-and Public Law Adriaanse; Confiscation in' Private International Law (1956) Bernard. L'arbitrage volontaire en droit prive (1937) XLVII


-F. Seleeted -Major MODographs-Continued :2. Jurisdiction, Judgments;Procedure and Public Law-COntinued· Blom-Cooper,Bankruptcy in Private International Law (1954) BUhler, Internationales Steuerrecht (IStR) und internationales Privatrecht (IPR) (1960) Carabiber, Les juridictioDs internationales etc. (1947) Cassoni, La naZionaJizzazione delle societa e i1 diritto internazionale privato (1959) Domke, Trading with the Enemy in World War (1948) Ehrenzweig and Koch, Income Tax Treaties (1949) Estcourt, The Conflict of Tax Laws (1918) Foighel, Nationalisation (1957) Friedman, Expropriation in International Law (1953) Giuliano, D fallimento nel diritto processuale civile internazionale (1943) lIett, Das fremde offentliche Recht im internationaien KollisioD8l'eCht (1959) Hjemer. Frimmande Valutalag och Internationell Privatritt (1956) (English summary) Hollander. Confiscation, Aggression, and Foreign Funds Control in American Law (1942) lIugin, Private International Trade Regulatory Arrangements and the Antitrust Laws (1949) }{aUmann, Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausUindischer Zivilurteile and gerichtlicher Vergleiche (1946) Kegel, Probleme des internationalen Enteignungs-und Wihrungsrechts (1955) . Klein, Considerations sur l'arbitrage (1955) Lunz, Du role du droit international prive dans 1a cooperation internationale (Ass'n Dem.Jur., 6th Congress 1956) Matthies. Die deutsche internationale ZustJindigkeit (1955) Neuner, Internationale ZustJindigkeit (1929) Offerhaus, Nederlandsch internationaal Bewijsrecht (1918) Pau, La prova nel diritto internazionale privato (1948) Piggott, Foreign Judgments and Jurisdiction (1908-1910) Re, Foreign Confiscations in Anglo-American Law (1951) Read, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (1938) Reu. Die staatliche Zustandigkeit im internationalen Privatrecht (1938) Riad, La valeur internationale des jugements en droit compare (1955) Rossi, II fallimento nel diritto americano (1956) Schoch, Das intertemporale Zivilprozessrecht (Diss.1959) Schoch, Klagbarkeit, Prozessanspruch und Beweis im Lichte des internationalen Rechts (1934) Seidl-Bohenveldern, Internationales Konfiskations- und Entei81lungsrecht (1952) Sommerich and Busch, Foreign Law: A Guide to Pleading and Proof (1959) Stimson, Conflict of Criminal Laws (1936) Troller, Das internationale Privat- und Zivilprozessrecht im gewerblichen Reehtsschutz und Urheberrecht (1952) Troller, Internationale Zwangsverwertung und Expropriation von 1mmaterialgiltern (1955)



Seleeted Major Monographs-Continued . 2. Jurisdiction. Judgments. Procedure and Public Law-Continued Udina, II diritto internazionale tributario (1949) Wengler, Beitrige zum Problem der internationalen Doppelbesteuerung (1985) S. PersoDS (DomeStIc-Relations and Corporations) Abrahams, Les soci~~ -en droit international prive (1957) AJfODsin, Regimen internacional del divorclo (1953) Alfonsin, Regimen internacional del matrimonio (1958) Alfonsfn, Sobre 1a existencia de las personas en derecho privado internacional (1958) Badr. Alien Corporations in Conflict of Laws (1953) Batiffol, La capacite civile des etrangers en France (1929) Beitzke, Juristiscbe Personen im Internationalprivatrecht und Fremdenrecht (1988) Benjamin, Le divorce, la separation de corps et leurs effets en droit international prive fran~is et anglais (1955) Bergmann, Internationales Ehe- und Kindscbaftsrecht (since 1952) De Nova, Adoption in Comparative Private International Law, 104 Rec. 75 (1962) De Nova, .Esistenza e eapacita del soggetto in diritto internazionale privato (1957) Farnsworth, The Residence and Domicil of Corporations (1939) Ficker, Das Recht des bilrgerlicben Namens (1950) GeseI1schaft fUr Recbtsvergleichung, Das internationale Familienrecht Deutschlands UDd Frankreichs (1955) Graveson, Status in the Common Law (1953) Henderson, The Position of Foreign Corporations in American Constitutional Law (1918) Hult, Forildrar ocb barn enligt svensk IPR (1948) Ireland-Galindez, Divorce in the Americas (1947) Jackson, The Law Relating to the Formation and Annulment of Marriage (1951) Loussouarn, Les conflits de lois en matiere de societes (1949) NBtAm, The Personality Conception of the Legal Entity (1938) NeUhaus, Die Verpftichtungen des unebeUchen Vaters im deutschen internationalen Privatreeht (1953) Philip, Studier i den internationale selskabs rets teori (1961) Pillet, Des personnes morales en droit international prive (1914) Socini, La filiazione nel diritto internazionale privato (1958) Tedeschi, II domicilio nel diritto internazionale privato (1933) Vieira, El domicilio en el derecho privado internacional (1958) Vreeland, Validity of Foreign Divorces (1938) Young, Foreign Companies and Other Corporations (1912)


Contracts Alfonsin Regimen internacional de los eontratos (1950) Basedow, Le droit international des assurances (1939) Batiffol, Les Conflits de Lois en Matiere de Contrats (1938) Bruck, Zwischenstaatliches Versicherungsrecht (1927) Caleb, Essai sur Ie principe de l'autonomie de Ja volonte en droit international prive (1927) ·Carnahan, Conftict of Laws and Life Insurance Contracts (2d ed. 1958) XLIX

F. Selected Major Monographs-Continued 4. Contracts-Continued Cheshire, International Contracts (1948) De Nova, L'estinzione delle obbligazioni convenzionnli nel diritto internazionaJe privato (1930) Domke, International Loans and the Conflict of Laws (1937) Eckstein, Geldschuld und Geldwcrt ic mntericllen und internationalen Privatrecht (1932) Ferid, Zum Abschluss von Auslancisvertrigen (1954) GamiUscheg, Internationales Arbeitsrecht (1959) Hambro, Jurisdiksjonsvalg og lovvalg (1957) Baudek, Die Bedeutung des Parteiwillens im internationalen Privatrecht (1931) Heilman, The Conflict of Laws and the Statute of Frauds (1961) Hinrichsen, Die gx contractus im amerikanischen Internationalprivatrecht (1933) Hogtun, Die Parteiautonomie und die universelle Vereinheitlichung des internationalen Privatrechts (1955) Internationales Versicherungsrecht (ed. Moller 1955), Festschrift ffir Ehrenzweig Sr. Lochner. Darlehen und Anleihe im intemationnlen Privatrecht (1954) Lorenz, Vertragsabschluss und Parteiwille im internationalen Obligationenrecht Englands (1957). Lorenzen, The Conflict of Laws Relating to Bills nnd Notes (1919) Malintoppi, Diritto uniforme e diritto internazionale privato in tema cD trasporto (1955) Michigan Law School, The Conflict of Laws and International Contracts (1949) Moser, Vertragsabschluss, VertragsgUltigkeit and Parteiwille im inte1'lnationalen Obligationenrecht (1948) Niquille, Anknflpfungsprobleme im intemationalen Vertragarecht (1950) pralss, International-rechtliche Aspekte der Kraftfahr-Haftpflichtversicherung (1957) Raiser, Die Wirkungen der WechselerkUlrungen im internationaJen Pri. vatrecht (1931) . Rheinstein, Die Struktur des vertraglichen Schuldverhiltnisses im angloamerikanischen Recht (1932) Riemann. Die Schuldvertrige im internationalen Privatrecht (1939)

F. Selected Major Monographs-Continued • 6. Property (including succession). Bepumii, II trust nel dirit~ inte~8Z1onale pnvato,.; (1957) Brindl, Internationales Borsenpnvatrecht (1925) . Bres1auer, The Private International Law of ~uccesslon (1937) Ferid-Firsching, Intemationales Erbrecht (since 1955) . • Jambu-Merlin, La jurisprudence des prises maritimes et Ie drOIt mternational prive (1947) LaIive The Transfer of Chattels in the Confiict of Laws (1955) Land, Trusts in the Conflict of Laws (1940) . terrechts (1913) Luxburg, Das internationale Privatrecht des ehelichen Gil Mann, The Legal Aspect of Mone~ (2d ed.1953) Marsh, Marital Property in Confilct of Laws (1952) Nussbaum, Money in the Law (2d ed. ~951) . Testam te Parra, Die Regel "locus regit actum' und die Formen der en eI ··tto· te . nale (1955) Ubertazzi, I rapporti patrimoniali tra coningi n dm m rn8Z1O privato (1951) ti naI La (1956) Znphiriou, The Transfer of Chattels in Private Interna 0 ~ G. Other Abbreviations and Citations 1 DIP end IPR in citations of Dutch, French, Italian, Portugu~, ~ca: • dinavian, Spanish and Germ~ books and articles denote eqUlva en of Private International Law. e 2. The variance in the position of the year of pUblifcal~n .in (~::~:n~~~ books [e g Gilmore and Black, the Law 0 mIra and arti~le~ [e. g. GoodriCh, Directive and ~i~ectiC, 6 VancLL.Rev. 442 (1953)] is intended to facilitate differentiatIon. 3.. Section numbers (e. g. § 16) without additional reference designate sections of this book. 4. References to footnotes (e. g. § 16 note 3) may be either to the footnote itself, or to the text to which it relates.


5.. Torts
Binder, Zur Auflockerung des Deliktsstatuts (1955) Delachaux, Die Anknupfung der Obligationen aus Delikt und QuasideJikt im iilternationaJen Privatrecht (1960) Hancock, Torts in the Confiict of Laws (1942) Harper and James, The Law of Torts (1956), Part Three (Confiict ot Laws), vol. 2, at 1679-1714. Balaster, Die ungerechtfertigte Bereicherung im internationalen Privatrecht (1955) . '!I Planta, Principes de droit international prive applicables aux. actes accomplis et aux faits commis a bord d'un aeronef (1955) Wirner, Wettbewerbsrecht und internationales·Privatrecht (1960)



.§ L The law of Conflict of Laws is usually described, though not defined, as the body of rules dealing with the effect of foreign "contacts" on the decision of a civil case. When will a court in the United States apply the law of a sister state or of a foreign coun.tty? When may·it do so, when must it do so? These are the problems of Choice of Law. Although these problems:iae ·-the~ topic of the law of conflict;=Of.;;laws;~ cussion is reserved for the~eCo~~l"i~~is book. The First Part· ~~tit1~~ic­ tiOD and Judgments,-topics, .which ::!.,.".;nnt included in the civil law counterpart ~t.COD­ :fUels law, the Private ·Intemati~ of other countries.1 Thi~ :~I~iie!~ation. ~-.::=~ A civil law court, in princiPle:·.i~·-"~e­ tent" only if it is the court of the defendant's 'domicile or if it has at least a substantial contact with the case. Since the defendant's right to fair notice and bearing is thus ordinarily safeguarded by rules of competency, the rules designed to secure such notice and hearing are sufficiently effective if enacted as mere procedural regulations subject
I. On the other hand, American confiicts law 18 also narrower than Private International Law, because it leaves to public internationo.l la,,, such topics as nationality, the treatment of aliens, o.nd sovereign ilmnunitr. Stevenson, The Relationsbip of PrlTBte International Low to Public International Law, 52 CoI.L.ReT. 561 (1952) would Include thef!e subjects nil well as lnternationo.l Orlminal Law. Cf. Stimson, Conflict of Criminal Laws (1936). See also It 4 note 32, 6 note 40, '; note 4.
Elnnzwelg Conflict of Laws-l


• !

to early waiver and cure.! In this country, on the other hand, "personal jurisdiction" may enable or compel a court to adjudicate a case with which it has no contact Whatever, merely because the plaintiff has invoked this court and was able to "catch" the transient defendant within the state. Rigid rules of "jurisdiction", whose violation is threatened with absolute and pennanent nullity, have been used to curb at least the most blatant abuses of this process; and decisional and .statutory rules authorizing the "inconvenient fo~" t~ protect itself from improper access, have come to the aid of this law of jurisdiction. .-. This law of jurisdiction also fulfills another function which is 'unknown abroad. In many cases in which the American court

For literature on Internntionnl Procedural Lnw,
sec infra § 25 note 17: 'Walkcr. Streitfrnllcn Rns dcm Internntionalen Zivllprozessrecht (ISDn: Glbb. The


Intcrno.tioDnl Law or Jurisdiction in Englo.nd and Seotlnn<l (1926); Kegel, 60 fr. For the 10.\\' 01 International jurisdiction governing whnt In ('h'U law countries Is refcrred to as "extrolltlglom:" or "non-contcntlous" proceedin(tS (freiwllUJl(! Gcrlcbt.". barkelt, Jurisdiction gracleutlC). see Co g. BruiUnrd, L'~volution de In notion de 'urlsdict1on dlte "graclense" 0\1 "volontalre" etc., 9 ReT.Orlt.Dr.Comp. 5 (1957) ; Swoboda, Das Interno.tionnle Recl1t der Fre1wnUgen Gericbtsbarkeit (Munich Diss.l034); H. KiSnlg, Die Internationo)prlvatrechtUche Zustlindlgkeit in der freiwUllgen Gericbtsbarkelt (Bamburg Dlss.1936); Motulskl, Les o.ctes de juris. diction gracieuse en DIP, 9 Travaux 13 (1003). See also infra I 50 notes 20 ft., f 51 note os. I 84 note 4S, § 86 note 2. I 89 note 21. On procedural cbolre of law see infra § 125. See also Dane. Kemprobleme des lnternatioDalen Becl1ts der fre1wlUigen Gerlcbtsbarkelt (1961).







§ 1

§ 2



must act by virtue of its "transient jurisdiction," the transaction sued upon calls for a difficult choice of a foreign law, where a civil law court would have avoided the problem by declaring itself incompetent. Moreover, even where the civil law court must resort to a foreign law, it may often do so upon tests of domicile or nationality, which, while readily applied in a world of narrow and certain national boundaries, of little avail in the United States with its free interstate migration and commerce. For these reasons, much of what in other countries is discussed and decided in terms of choice of law, is discussed and decided in this country in terms of jurisdiction.3 Finally, a jurisdictional technique has proved· indispensable because many choice of law problems satisfactorily dealt with abroad under g~neral dogmatic formulas, present themselves in this country in infinite varieties of every-day life. Litigation concerning a mortgage on automobiles bought and financed in other states, a defamatory broadcast carried through all states of the nation, an insurance policy issued by an Eastern company to a Midwestern farmer, require new pragmatic solutions. Attempts to u~void conflict"·oy new interpretations of the United States Constitution and uniform state legislation have been only partly successful, and the common law process of finding questions and answers to specific fact situations has proved often too slow for the demands o~ ~e day. Here again the law of jurisdiction has the ~ important function of reducing the burden of American courts. Both the American and· foreign lawyer thus require an understanding of that branch of the law before approaching what elsewhere is considered the law of confiict of laws proper. For these reasons, then, the First Part of

this book is largely devoted to "jurisdiction." 4
But much of this First Part also speaks in terms of "judgments." Though historically the first contact of Anglo-American law with foreign legal systems, the law governing the recognition of foreign judgments is often treated as the final topic in texts on conflict of laws. However, this branch of the law is closely connected with the law of jurisdiction because recognition of foreign judgments is largely tested by what is referred to as the "international" or "interstate" jurisdiction of the judgment court. Since, moreover, this topic has little or no connection with choiceof-law problems, it has been included in the First Part, "Jurisdiction and Judgments."


The concepts of both jurisdiction and choice of law require historical analysis. The General Introduction to Parts One and Two includes a summary of such an analysis (§ § 2-5), as well as a brief survey of the reasons for the partial separation, in the present work, of international and interstate conflicts problems (§ 6), and a general description of the sources of American conflicts law in general (§§ 7-10). The first chapter discusses the law of jurisdiction concerned with the courts' authority (§§ 12-33) and willingness (§§ 34-44) to "take" a case with foreign elements. The second chapter analyses the conditions for the recognition of foreign
4. Beginning with Story's Commentnrles, treatments of this subject tn this country have almost Invariably started with a discussion of the common law concept of domicile on .tbe ground that this concept is one of primary tmportnnce in the entire field of conflIct of lnws. This approacbwas quite natnraland, iadeed. the only proper one lor Story, for his book \vas almost entirely llmlted to the . law of persons. to the exclusion of a "commercial law" then largely governed by federal or internatlonal rules. As tnthis law of persons, Story had to make clear that American law, in contrast to many European lawa of his tTme, would continue to stress domicile over nationality. But the time has come, I believe, when we must admit that the law of persons as such, and \vithln it the rule of domicile, has lost much of that predominant significance. Cf. Reese, Does Domicil Bear A Single lleanlng?, (10iS6) Ned.Tijdsc.br.Int.R. 15 (1955). 55 Col.L.Rev. 589 (1055): Rest. Continued, Tent. Draft No. 2, 53 If. (1954). See infra II 72, 136.

judgments in general (§§ 45-60) and the broad area of res judicata including collateral estoppel (§§ 6.1-70). The third chapter reviews the specilll problems of local as well as international and interstate jurisdiction concerning divorce (§§ 71-81) and its adjuncts-support (§ § 82-85), custody (§ § 8689), and annulment (§§ 90-92). These three chapters, which cover the bulk of American case law in the entire field of conflict of laws, must include many subjects of noncontlicts CC'local") jurisdiction which are relevant not only for the confiicts lawyer, but for anyone dealing with problems of domestic procedure. Such subjects are the !~ of procedural capacity governing standing to sue (§ § 12-20) and to be sued (§ § 21-24), as well as the rules governing proper process (§§ 25-33) and the convenient forum (U 34-44). The Second Part on Choice of Law is introduced in the fourth chapter by an attempt at formulating a General Theory. Elimina: tioIi of pseudo confticts and pseudo rules (§§ 101-103) is designed to lay the groundwork for the establishment, in history, comparative law, and American practice (§ § 104109), of the lex fori as a basic rule of choice, and for the concomitant analysis, as mere devices for neutralizing overgeneralized a prio-

ri choices of foreign "governing" laws (§ §

UO-120), of such recent academic creations as "characterization" and renvoi and such old cure-alls as failure of proof and public . policy. This analysis is followed by a brief description of current doctrine (§§ 121-123); the exclusion from further discussion of those situations which properly reserved to the law of the forum as matters of procedure (§ 125); a preview of the approach taken throughout this Part in ascertainingthe conflicts rule (§§ 124, 126); and a summary of the practices and theories which have determined the finding of the applicable law (§§ 127-129). Chapter Five, after a brief analysis of the concept of "status" and its "incidents" (§ § 135, 136), covers the law of persons under the main headings of do-mestic relations (§§ 137-143) and "juristic persons" (§§ 144-150). Chapter Six deals with the law of obligations. It contains a discussion of problems common to all obligations, such as statutes of limitations, transfer and third party effects (§§ 160-170), and sub-chapters on contracts (§ § 171-210) , torts (§§ 211-226), restitution (§ 227) and worlanen's compensation (§§ 227-230). The final Chapter Seven on the law of property is divided in transactions inter vivos (§ § 231245) and succession (§§ 246-250).


Beale, Conflict of Laws (1985) 1819: Cross key, Politics and the Constitution In the HIstory of the United States (1053): Rhelnstein, The Constitutionaa Bases of Jurisdiction, 22 U.Chl.L.Rev. 175 (1955): id., Das Kolllslonsrecht 1m System des Verfassungs. reehts der Verelnlgten Staaten von Amerika, 1 Rabel Festschrift (105-!) 539. For European Uteratu~ see particululy GutzwUler, Le ~ve1oppement Hlstorique du DIP, 29 Bee. 291 (l929): LoJn6. Introduction au DIP (1888); Neumeyer, Die GemeInrechtllche Entwicke1ung des internatlonalen Privat-und Strllfrechts bls Bartolus (1001): Sack, Con1li~ 9t La\V8 in the Hlstol7 of the EnglIsh Law, 3 Law: A Century of Progress 342 (1081), SeLRead. 1; Gibl. Den InternationeUa Privatriittens Historia och Allminoa Princ1per (19M); Niederer, EinfUhrong In. die AUgeme1nen Lehren des LP.R. (1954) 11 If.: Gamillsdleg, Der Eintloss Domoollns aut die Entwicklung des Kolllslonsrecl1ts (1900): Batiffol 1 fr.; 1 Pillet. Droit International Prlv6 22 If. (1923); Verplaetse, Derecho Internac10nal Prlvado (1954) 39

§ 2. The history of conflicts law reflects
a struggle between two tendencies which


.. • • • sometimes loosely used to mean that under the faets of the case a party Is not entitled to prevail and that. therefore, the court Is without power to grant the relief asked for." Deseret Apartments v. United States, 2:50 F.2d 451, 4iS9 (10th Cir. 105i). Cf. Graveson. Choice of Law and Choice of Jurisdiction in the English Conflict of Laws, 28 Br. Y.B.lnt.L. 211, :!OO (1051).

have been competing abroad and in this country: one that we may call Wlitarian, seeking to resolve or avoid con1Uct by the assumption of a "super-law"; the other that We may caD pluralistic, denying legal character to any assumed order above each nation's own law. The early interplay of these tendencies, having often been described,l
I. Yntema, TIle Historic Bases of Private International Law, 2 Am.J.Comp.L. 29T (19tS3). See also 3


§ 2

§ 2




may be swnmarized as the movement from . American com1s bad net yet fully 'recogniz,a prenatal unitarian stage in the empires of > ed the need for, nor the existence of, such Rome and· England, in which the political. a Jaw. International conflicts problems reality of "one world" and internationalism: were largely govem~ by inte~ti.on~ law,' in law and trade avoided conflicts of laws; i-and interstate con1bctswere 11l1DlJD1Zed by through pluralistic beginnings of the later' the recognition of a general commercia11aw "statutists" partly neutralized by canonist . as well as by the existence of what was then and other ~atural law teaching; to the out- a nearly uniform common law.G The ·choice right pluralistic nationalism of the newly between several laws first. became a problem bom 'Netherlands which conceded mere in this country with regard to certain topics "comity" to other sovereigns. It was at this ,of personal law exposed to particularistic stage that a new American conflicts law, tendencies,S and to comparatively isolated. starting from the Dutch doctrine of comity legislative encroachments upon the common. with its near-denial of a law of conftict of law. Harriage prohibitions, usury laws and laws added the super-law concept of con- insolvency statutes were among the earliest tem~raneous English judicial jurisdiction. examples of such legislation, and the code We shall trace the results of this compromise Jaw of Louisiana produced the first ADlerito the ·unitarian "vested rights" and ''legis- can treatise on the conflict of laws.' lative jurisdiction" refiected in the opinions Neither Roman nor English law offered of Justice Holmes and in the Restatement of American courts much assistance in the soluConflict of Laws; and again from Judge (10M); Id., Josepb StOry's Contributlon to American Hand's transitional "localism", through the cOnfllc:ts Law: A Comment, 5 Am.J .Leg.Hist. .280 new pluralistic beginnings of Stone, Cook (lOOi); Valladtlo, The Influence of Joseph Ston- on Lntln-American llule~ of Conflict of Laws, id. at 27. and Lorenzen, to the problems and ~olutions But see also Cook 3U: ")luch of tile confusion in of our time.2 . Anglo-Amcrlcan legal thinking goes back to Story's
treatise": Inlm I 3 note !t Y. Ball. 1 Da11. 229. 232 CPa. Sup. Ct.l1SS) . ( " . . . mutual conventency, polier, the consent 2. NO-LAW: "COMITl· OF NATIONS" of nations. nnd tile generalllrinciples of justice form a code whlcll JlCJ'\'ades all nntjons and must he even'\\'here aekno\\'leda:red nnel Jlun;tted"). Cf. 1 American conflicts law, as we know it toCr~y. Politics and the Constitution in the Hil"' day, goes back to Joseph Story. When he .. torr of the United States (1ro3) 540; Nadelmanll. Full Faitb and CredIt to Judgments and I'ubJic wrote his Commentaries 125 years ago,' Acts: A Bistorlcnl Analytical Iteappralsal, 50 Mich. L.1leT_ 33, 70 f. (19;;';); iDfm § 0 note 4fr.; Ferreira. La Conception du DIP d'apr~ la doc- S. Cf. Steinmetz T. Currie, 1 Dall 270, 272 cpa. Sup. trine et 1a pratique au Portugal. 89 Ree. 600, 010 Ct.l78S), relying on "general mercanWe law" rather (10r.6); .BJagojcvic, lledunnrodno Prlvatno Pravo than ""the local regulations of PennsylvanIa," as if (1050) 49 ft. Jo'or South America, see e. g. 1 Romero the ease "bad been determined in France. Spain or Del Prado. lInnunl de DIP 895 (1944): 1 Cast1lla, Bolland, as well as in England." See also Miller Dereebo lnterDac:lODOl PriTado 198 (1949). See also T. Ball. supra note 4; 1 Swift, A System of Laws Timbal, La contribution des auteurs et de 1a pratiof tbe State of Connecticnt (1795) 41; 1 Hoffman. que coutwnla-e au DIP du moyen 19e, 44 Bev.Crit. Course of Legal Swdy (2d ed. 1836) 411); Story, 17 (1955); Quadrl 34-4S. Amerlc:an Law, 3 Am.J.Comp.L. 9, 11, 24 (1934); LesUe. Slmllar1tles in Lord Mansfield's and Joseph 2. Bee in general Ebrenzweig, American Conflicts Storts View of Fundamental Law, 1 Am.J.Leg.Bist. Law in Its Blstorical Perspective, 103 U.Pa.L.Rev. 278, S04 (195'7). 133 (1954); infra H 104-108. 3. Storr. Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws 6. "lfarrlages, dlvorces, wUls, suecessions, and judgments" are enumerated as the most important top(1834). See Lorenzen, Story's Commentaries on the ics on the tltle page of Story's Commentaries, suConflict of Laws--One Hundred 'Ienrs After, 48 pranote3. .~ Han'.LJle\'. 17 (1934); Cheatham, American Theories of Conflict of Laws: Their Bole and UWitr, "J. LIvermore, Dissertations on the Questions which Arise from the Contrariety of the Positive Laws of 58 Ban'.L.BeT. 361 (1945); Nadelmann, Joseph DUferent States and Nations, (New Orleans, 1828). Story's Sketch of American Law, 3 Am.J .Comp.L. 3
! I 4. Mliler



conflict by applying English law.I' Since Roman 'and English law thus failed ·1licts" of law by a unitarian order. Ancient American courts in their. search for guidance Rome had achieved this by having· the for- in conflicts cases, they tUrned to other legal eigner, incapable of having a law of his systems. Some American colonies had own,8 at first apply and later create Roman strong ethnical and cultural ties with the. .law.9 Medieval Roman doctrine, though con- Netherlands. With regard to the treatment ceding legislative power to the several units of intemational problemS these ties were of the declining empire,10 had· co~tinued to probably quite effective in the early history think in terms of all-embracing sovereignties of the United States which, like the Nether· of pope 11 and emperor. And English law, lands, had gained its independence from an -while partly following Roman doctrine,u had empire. Dutch legal scholarship, and pri-reached a slmilarresult by the new device of marily the writings of Ulric Huber and Joexcluding foreign contacts: the jury was not hannes Voet, greatly ~uenced American to pass upon foreign facts,13 and the deed confiicts law, which thus came to reject the made 16 or tort committed 16 abroad could not imperial "statutist" heritage of a law "govbe sued on in England. Although in the erning" by virtue of its own claim to authorcourse of time mercantile needs broke down ity,18 and to stress mere "comity" as the basis these baniers and forced upon English com- of applying foreign laW.19 mon law courts jurisdiction over foreign estre alleadge destre diem;' Angllterrc" (If Athlone facts,16 these courts continued to forestall

1ion of these new problems, since these laws

.ShaI'ed the imperial privilege to deny "con-

'8. BaUft'ol 7 fr.; Id., Aspects phIJosophIques du droit international privc (1950) 144; 'Yntema, supra Dote 1, at 300 ft. (~so concerning Greek antecedents). 9. See, e. ~.. Mem. fl Z.Int.Str.Pr.R. 1 (]S!'If): Rnbel, Book ReVIew, 22 Z.lnt.R. 332 (lUI!!); .1010\\'iC:Z, Ito· man Foundations of Modcrn Law (10;iil 30. 10. On the theorIes of tbe Italian and French "stat. utlsts", see infra § 100 notes 13-21, 27-30.
II. On the conflicts law of tile canonists. see Neumeyer, op. c:1t. suprn note 1. at 113; Van HO\'e, Ln Tcr.

ritorial1t~ et In l'ersonal1tA! des lois eo droit (,Jlnoni. que depuis Gratien ("ers 1140) jURql1'i! Jeon Andreas (1348), 3 Tljdscbrift "oor ItcclltsJ:csch. !!77 (1022). Bee also Scott. 1"'ranc:1sco Suarez. His Pbilosoph,· of Law and of Sanctions. 22 Geo.L.J. 400, 472 (19M): Nussbaum, A Concl~e History of the Lnw of Nations (19f7) 04 fr.: infra § )00 note 18. 12. Cf. Henry, The JudJnuent of the Court of De. merara, etc. (1823): Burge, Commentaries on ColoDial and Foreign Ln.w (lsstt,.

were alleged to be in Englnnd). 17. Where the "clvU le~'" was appUcable because both .the place of contracting antI that of performance were "In pnrtlbus maritimis," admlraltr would bnn> e..~cln8h·e juri~d1ctlon. CaPPf; Case, 2 Ilolle 402, "In';'. 81 Eng.llep. 037, 040 (K.ll. 162U). See alllO Siany & Ciobery ,'. Cotton. 2 Rolle 480, 81' Eng.Iter). 9a:~ (lU2U). Dut see alRO Gold ,'. GoodwIll, 2·Keble 078. S4 Eng.Uep. 427 (1082) (apparently permitting ext>. cution In Admiralty of foreign judgment based Ofi 10relJrn In\\'); Gl-eenwny and Barker's Case, Godll. 200. 7f' Em:.Il~Jl. 1u1 (1013), (apparently concedin;: triauillty of n foreign case under foreiJ!n law urlOlJ certification of tllat lnw "to tlle Justices of l::1I~' land"). On tllC early conflict between competillJ: conrts. ~cc e. Jr. GrnveWJll, ChOice of La\\' and Choice or .1urisdlction In the English Conflict of Lnws 28 Dr.Yb.Int.L. 2;3 f. (1051). See also Curric, On 'the Displncement of tlle Law of the Forum. 58 Colwn. L.Ite'·. 004, 007-000 (1038). 18. 'Intema, supra note 1, at 303; infrn § 100.
19. See Lorenzcn. Buber's de Conflictu Legum. Seleel' ed ReadJngs on the Conflict of Laws 13G (1947): Davies, The Influence of Buber's De Conflic:tu u. ItUW on English Prh'ate International Law, 18 Br. Yb.lnt.L. 40 (1937). On comity, see Lenhoff. Ilet·. iproclty: The Legal Aspect ofa Perennial Idea, 49 N.W.U.L.Rev. 619. 752 ff. (1935); Kuhn, Doctrine~ of Private International Law in England and Amerlen Contrasted with those of Continental Europe, I:! CoI.L.Re\'. 44, 46 (1912,; iDfra note 20. On Dutch influence, see e. g. Goebel, King's La", and Local Oustom in Seventeenth Centurr New EDgland. 3] ColL.Re\'. 410, 428 (1931); Van Laer, lllnutes of the Court of Albany, Renselaers\vyck and Schenectady 1668-1073 (1920); Morris, Select Cases of the Mav. or's Court of New l:ork City 1674-1781, pp. 42. $

13. Sack, Supra note I, at 346. 14. Anonymous, 'iearbooks, 2 Edw. II (1308), 1 Sel-

den Soc'y 110, No. 53 (1903).

. i

15. Pape v. The Merchants of Florence In London, 9 Edw. I (Coram Rege Roll 04. 1281) 40 Selden Soc'~ . 34. See In general Sack, supra note I, at 342. •


I r

,16. For an ~ample Ulustrating the use of fictions for th1s purpose, see Anonymous. c:1ted in Ward's Case, Latch 3, 82 Eng.Rel). 6S7 (15il). where it was held that, while there would be no jurisdictIon In a case involving an oblIgation created In Athlone Ireland the obligation could be sued on "entant Athlone






Relying. primarily upon Huber's authorIty,.sO Story found him to possess "undisputed preference on this subject over other continental jurists, as well in England as in Amer.. ica.":!l Citing Huber, Story states that .I'whatever force and obligation the laws of one country have in another, depends solely upon the laws, and municipal regulations of the latter, that is to say, upon its own proper jurisprudence and polity, and upon its own express or tacit consent" 21 Rejecting attempts at establishing principles entitled to general recognition, he approved the statement in Saul v. His Creditors S3 that confiicts law thus "touched the comity of nations, and that that comity is, and ever must be, uncertain." But it will be shown that Story himself was unable to adhere to this theory of "mere comity" and had to look for a compromise. This theory, while workable and proper enough in international relations, has never been adequate for interstate relations within the American Union. The civil law courts of Louisiana, in particular, when obligated to apply a sister state system essentially dlf-

ferent from their own, were in need of "cer_ tain principles" .114 It is understandable, therefore, that it had been the Louisiana lawyer Livermore who had declared the "modern" doctrine of courtesy "inconsistent with the very nature of a court of justice." ss Although the "comity" language of independence has remained with us until the present day,28 it thus con1licted from its inception with the needs of a country in which not only growing intercourse between member states· demanded interstate law, but where the relations between states became less significant than relations between individuals whose very citizenship in the several states steadily lost meaning.2T A compromise be-tween the pluralistic UNo-Law" of comity and a new unitarian "Super-Law" of jurisdiction, both judicial and legislative, was the result of this irreconcilable conflict


§ 2

§ 3



been limited in the usage of the Roman and Canon law of the Middle Ages. L This super-Ia'! of jurisdiction owes its current prevalence· to Joseph Story, the judge and scholar.s According to him "lawful",


§ 3. Judicial jurisdiction. Judgments recovered in the courts of one state have al(103G): Anton, The Introduction into English Prac- ways been recognized in siste~ states, and tice of Continental Theories on the Con1Uct of Laws. compulsion rather than comity has always I ;; Int. &:: Comp.L.Q. 534 (1056). 20. For an earlier case showing the same reliance, been applied in this respect. Since, as will : see· the comprehensive quotation from Huberus in be shown later (§ 47), the Supreme Court at Emory v. Grenougb, 3 Dall. (3 U.S.) 3GB (l7D7). But ct. James Sullivan, The HIstory of Land Titles in first failed to utilize the Full Faith and CredMassachusetts (1801) 352 tr•• obJecttng to the author- it Clause for this purpose, another basis for ity of Huberus. "often recurred to in our· courts," compulsion was sought and found in the conIn matters of commercial contracts "properly subJect to federal regulation." On Huber's in1luence cept of the foreign court's "jurisdiction". upon Lord Mansfield, see Rbeinste1n, supra note 1. This concept was thus extended beyond the· 21 •. Story 32. See also infra 1106 notes 51-05, f 101 forum's domestic authority to which it had
notes 10, 1L
22. Story 24. See also Aumann, The Influence of Engllsh and Civil Law Principles upon the American .Legal System during the Critical Post-Revolutionary Period, 12 U.Cln.L.Rev. 289 (1938): Pound, The Place of Judge Story in the llaklng of American Law, 48 Am.L.Bev. 616, 685, 681, 693, 694 (1914). Story's predominant reliance upon Continental sources bas in part been explained by the availablllty to blm of Livermore's coJlection of medieval treatises. Valladao, supra note 3. at 30.

23, SRul v. Hfa Creditors, 5 Mart.Rep., N.S., 569, 596 (La.1821). See Story 20.

24. Livermore, op. cit. supra note 7, at 15. Concerning the in1luence of Lou1siaDa law on Story. see Valladilo, supra note 3, at 30_ 25. Llvennore, op. cit. supra note 7, at 111, 11226. For o.n analysis of the comity theory in AmerIcan Law, see Cheatham, supra note 1, at 37-1. Regarding ~current uses of the term, see Nussbaum 11. 27. Where' tb1s is not tbe case, the concept bas retained its validity. Of. Davis v. Rhyne, 312 P.2d 626 (Kan.1OS1) (extradition). See also 1Dfrao-1 184 (for_.....\().l J eign government reguJatlODS).



I. Cf. Alberlci de ROBate Bergomensis Dlctlonarium Juris tam Civilis. quam Canonici (1623) defining, In reliance on Azo's Summa. "Jurisdiction" as the power to adjudicate. For an early use of the term in n conflicts setting, see the statute of Vercelli (1225) invalidating instruments prepared by notaries "de aliena jurisdictione." 2 Neumeyer supra § 2note I, at 46. In classic Rome, "territorial" jurisdiction was said to be based on the magistrate's right to 3ST; Rocco, Dlrltto Civile Intel'nazionale (1859); frighten ("terrere") those within his territory. Bnllndore PallIerl, DIP (2d ed. 1050); infra § 106 Wenger, Institutes of the ROlDan Law of Ch'U Prouotes 22-24. cedure 3D, n. 32 (tram;. Fisk 1040). Compare the similar derivation of "district" from the lord's power On Story's counterparts In Latin Americn. Augusto Teixeira dp FI'(>ItnR (Brazil) nnd Bello (Chile). see to "dlstrnin." llurray's Xe\v EngLDict. (1891), "DIsValladiio, Develuppement du DIP de l'Amerique, .. trlct." t:Ull.1..cgisl.llIhI.Jur. de l'Am.l.at. !) (1000). See nlso 2. Story's work hns severni counterpnrts in Europe. Xadelmann, De- 1'0rgnnizntlon et de In Jnrisdlction On $av;fJ"U. see infm. § 106 notes 63-65. Though d~ COtll'S de Justice aux Etats Unls d'Amerique ndmltting the natlonnl sourcc of nil condlcts luw, pur lL Joseph Story, 30 B.U.L.Rev. 382 (tD-:JO), for Savlgny Insisted on the demands of a t-Iupemationnl translations and discussions of two enrly articles by "community of law," based on a common Christian ::)tory In foreiltll leJrllI periodicals. explalnin~ the culture, mutual interest Ilnd the postulate of "uni.American system to Continental scholars. For grformity of (lecisloo." [See Pagenstecher, Oer Grundstell's (Eunomla 1822) impact on Scandlnuvian law, 8ntz des Entscheidungseinklangs 1m IPR flO;;l).} see Bon1m. LovkontUkter (4th ed. with Philip, 1001) His stress on the "seat" of nn obligation hIlS often 20 ft. See nlso supra. § 2 note 3. been ridiculed ["obligations do not sit Itt nil or, if they do, they sit o~ two stools," Brlnz, Lehrbucb der 3. Story 402, 458, 453. Pandekten (1873) 102]. But his approach. though 4. Id., at 443. See also id., at 468. For laying down sharing Story's inconsistent combination of unitarian the .. tnte doctrine" (at 450), Story relies on Vattel, and pluralistic elements, greatly in1luencetl Uartin infm. § 45, note G. StOry's ndmiralty precedents are and Despagnet. Ph1llImore and Westlake, Flore and etlually predlcuted upon concepts of public internaDlena. See Sangnr... Private Internntlonal Law tional law. See e. g. C. J. lIarshall's opinion in (trans. Guthrie 1869): Gutzwiller, Oer Elnflu88 Rose v. Himely, 4 Crnnch (8 U.S.) 2-11, 269. 270 SaVlgnys aut die Entwicklung ties· Internntionai(1808), from whlcb Story quotes extensively· (at privatreehts (1023); lIaridakis, Die internatlonal403) in explaining the "lawful jurisdiction" of a privatrechWche Lebre Savignys 1m Licbte seiner foreign court. After declaring that In an admirRechtsentstehungstbeorIe.Le\vald Festschrift (l03:n aity case "upon principle . to a car309 ; and In general, Yntema, The Historic Bases tnin extent, tbe capacity of tbe court • • of Private International La\V, 2 Am.J.Comp.L. 201. may be considered by that tribunal which Is to de309 (1053); BaWfol, Aspects philosophiques du DIP cide on the effect of the sentence," lIarshall ap(10G6) 12ft.; reviewed lIaury, 46 Rev.Orit. DIP 229 proved what he declared to be English pra~ce (1951). under which recognition of foreign judgments "Is In 1851 Jlancin' gave his famous speech on "~ation­ uniformly quoJUled with the limitation that (the ality as the Basis of the Law of Nations". Followforeign court} bas, in the given' case, jurisdiction ing the French Civil Code, he gave the Impulse to of the subject matter." In the cnses cited by liarthe partial displacement in civll law countries of shall (T~e Fla.d Oyen, 1 Rob.Chr. 1M (High Ct. the domlclle principle. which is still prevalent In of Adm. 17U9): The Henrick and lIarla, 4 Rob.Chr. Anglo-AmeriCllD law. See supra f 1 note -1: also 43 (HIgh Ct. of Adm. 1199); The Comet, 5 Rob.Chr. Infra § 86 note 1. In empbasIzing an internationoJ 285 (HIgh Ct. of Adm. 1804): Tbe Helena, 4 Rob. obligation to recognize private interests, his theory Chr. 3 (Higb Ct. of Adm. 1801)), foreign aets of is unitarian. But it bas also advanced pluralistic condemnation and sale were examlned under the tendencies by recognizlng publlc poliey exceptions. law of nations. See also Infrn § 45 notes 16ft'.: and Mancini has been followed by Laurent and WeiSS. generally Mathiasen, Some Problems of Admiralty and bas bad a considerable impact on European legJnrlsdlction in the 17th Century, 2 Am.J.Leg.Hlsr. Islation (e. g., the Saxon Code of 1863). He collabo215 (1958) •. rated in the drafting of the "PrelIminary ProVisions" of the ItaHan Code of 1865 which bave in part 5. All of the equity cases· cited by StorY 455fr. for his concept of the Judgment court's- (lnternationai) been continued in tbe con1l1cts provisions of the new jurisdIction deal with the forum's own (local) uuCode- of 1~ Diena, La conception duo DIP d'npres thority to interfere with foreJgn 1aDd. See e. g. fa doctrine et la pratique en ltalle, 11 Ree. (1927) II

or "legitimate" jurisdiction, "rightfully exercised" 3 by a foreign court, entitles its judgment to recognition. This concept of jurisdiction is apparently identified with what Story also refers to as "jurisdiction inter gentes, upon principles of public [international] law.'" Even where Story leaves the laws of nations and admiralty and enters what today we call the law of conflict of laws, he seeks, though without much support in the case law,1S to evaluate the "lawfulness"





§ 3



~.§ 4



of the jurisdiction· underlying the foreign judgment.e It will be seen later -that the
Whlte v. Ball. 12 Yes. 821. 33 Eng,Rep. 122 (1806) (expressly recognlzlng the fOreign court's "IntrInsic" jurisdiction); Oranstown T. Jobnston, 3 Va 170, 183, 30 Eng.Rep. 9;j2, 95!} (1196) (holding defendant liable to reconvey n West·Indian estate "unconscionably" acquired under the declW of a foreign court whose jurisdiction was not denied). Perbaps the earlIest case raising the possibUity that "jurisdlctions mlgbt clash", ls Comes Al'lZlosse T. Muschamp, 1 Vern. 75, 135,23 Eng.Rep. 3:!~, 3GD (1682), overruling a plen to the jurisdiction concerning Irish land, as "only a jest. • by the common lawyers." For bis proposition thnt "every exertion ·of authority [by a sovereign beyontl its own territorial limits thougb in aecortlnnce "'Ith ItJ:: o\rn laws] . Is a mere nuUltY, and incapnble of binding . in any other tribunals" (at 450). Story cites only bis own opinion in Plcquet T. Swan. ;; Mason 35 (Clr. Ct.l828), where the forum's juriS(liction Ol'er a nonresident clti~u was denied for lack of proper senicc. The nOIl·admirnlty precedent primarily relic() upon by Story In this case and in bis text (at 492). is the well-)mowncase of Buchanan T. Uucker, D East 102, 103 Eng.Bep. 5-W (1808). ETen bere, Lord Ellenborougb, wblle denylnl't the Island of Tobajlo ·the power "to bind tbe rIgbts of the whole worltl," by n Judgment based on service ,·Iolating minimum stantlnrdH of fair notice. was careful not to deny Tobago's jurisdiction under ber own law. Eigbt years later. Lortl Ellenborousrh, in Onvon T. Stc"'art, 1 Stark 52i.i, 528, 171 Eng.Rep. M1, 55!! 0816) derived the inTruidlty of II. Jamaiea judJm)t'nt agalnllt a defendant not properly notlfie<l, fron1 ..the first principles of justice." a phrase borro,,'ed from Lord Cblef Justice De Grey's opinion 10 Fisller T. Lane, 8 Wilson 29:>, 30:! (1;;2) wll0 seemed to identify these principles with tile law of England. ("The twenty-set'eo colunles abroad cannot make a law contrary to tbe la\t' of England. but they can make any law agreeable thereto, and to the prinCiples of justice", itl. nt 303). See also Turnbull T. Walker, [18tYl] OJ L.T.•Gj; and In general BormUeld, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, 3 1nt. & Comp.L.Q. 49 (195-1); infra § liO note 1. 6. This concept or Its equivalent was probably not entirely unknown at Story's tlme. As early ns 1786. in Kibbe , .. Kibbe, Kirby 119 (Conn.17SO). involving a suit In Connecticut on a l\lassachusetts judgment, the defendnnt countered tbe plaintiff's reliance on the fact that tile proeeedlngs underlying that judgDlent "were conformable to the laws and customs" of Massachusetts, b~' claimJng tlUlt tbese proceedln~ were "altogether lllegal, antI not conformable to or warranted by the laws of this stote [Connecticut~] or any other" (at 125). And tbe court apparently adopted tbe tlefendo.nt's argument by bolding thnt MassncllUsctts "had no legal jurisdlctJon of tlle cause" (at 12G). That this npproach was, boweTer, far from generally accepted, appeurs from a CDBe decided 2:; years later in Massachusetts wbere tbe court, giving full faith and credit to a ~ew BnmJ>-

standards used in the evaluation of this "intemational" ·or !'interstate" jurisdiction of the judgment. court ·may differ from those applied by the forum in determining its own "local" jurisdiction (§ 57). That Story and his successors in terms failed to distinguish between these two types ·of "jurisdiction" is probably the principal source of our present equivocal terminology. Resulting ambi~ties have been extended into the field of choice of law by the adoption of the concept of "legislative jurisdiction," which is in part supported by the "vested rights" of public international law. These concepts require separate analysis.

.eign "liberal" law, courts applied it over the

Story's successors have completed the proc-


..... ..

4JSUl"Y statute of the forum. 3 . If this practice .·ess by subjecting cholce of law in general 10 $'8S not to be based on the doctrine of comity the rules governing -juBgment recogmtion.

·r -!

§ 4. "Legislative jurisdiction". .Comity had almost "put the conflict of laws out of joint and. . placed the whole subject on .a basis where it nearly perished." 1 Not oruy as to judicial jurisdiction, but also as to choice of law,_a new approach was needed. This approach was based on an analogy to the above-described theory of judicial jurisdiction.! . ~'
Beginnings may be found in Story's treatment of interstate loan contracts. Early American courts showed a solicItude for money lenders strange to modern ways of thinking and certainly to present law. If the loan had been contracted under a forshire judgment, limited Its Inquiry to an exmnlnatlon of "the manner in wblcb a particular juri~"Ie­ tlon I" exercised, according to Iu: own regulntlous and tlle Inws of the state from whence IlD nutheu· tlcated judgment Is tokell." Bissell T. Bri~s. {l )lass. 461, 4jO (1813), distinguishing the Kibbe holding as a ",·tolent expedient[s), to wblcll recourse was bad to avoid a construction ot wblch courts of jus· tlce naturn1ly revolt" (at 4j2). See also the followIng cases relied on by Story: Pbelps T. Bolker, 1 Dall. 261 (Pa.1788) (denying recognition without resort to jurisdictionn1lo.ngullge); Jackson T. Jackson, 1 Johns. 424 (New York 1SOG) (refusing to rec:ognize a Vermont diTorce as obtained in fraudem legis). MeUl. Eln Specimen QUS der bolliindisdlen Schule des intcmationalen PriTntrecl1ts <Ulricus Huber 1G.~G-1C94), S Z.Int.Pr.Str.n. 189. 100 (trans. Lorenzen, 0)'. cit. suprn § 2 note 19, nt'lliS). 2. Tbls tlleory is often referred to as "territorial" In olle of the mnny meaniugs of this word. See Nussbaum 40 n. 29.






:alone, the foreign state had to be given an What to Story had been a means toward an _-exclusive "power" over the contract, which isolated solution of ~c situations, be4W8S not explainable by that doctrine. To came Beale's dogma of "legislative jwisdic1:hi.s end, Story took the first step in the di- tion" . .., TeCtion toward a new super-law by denying "Vested rights". The· doctrine of legis]a_effectiveness to the forum statute because tive jurisdiction, historically. and.in terms, in regard to acts or contracts performed is related to statutory 1aw. Within_ a com.elsewhere uno country can give to Its own mon law framework it Mquires, therefore, a ··laws an extra-tenitorial authority, so as ·to theoretical foundation capable of including bind other nations.'" This reasoning is still decisional rules. For this purpose the theory with us in Beale's even more general state- of vested rights has been borrowed from the ment that "no statute has force to affect any law of nations.8 The Restatement of the act. . outside the terri- Law of Confiict of Laws, while not speaking .tory of the state that passed it." a in tenns of vested rights like Professor Beale, These statements assume a super-national its principal author,s has adopted· a: similar f territorial limitation of legislative authority; terminology by purporting to delimit the and ·they explain when and why foreign stat- scope within which a state "may" or i,can" :utes need not or may not be applied. But create interests entitled to recognition in "these statements do not tell us yet when and other states. lO why ·such statutes mayor must be applied but not the deciSional law,of the states) by Klaxon because of a' super-national legislative auCo. ' .. Stentor Electric Mi=:. Co., .813 U.S. 487, 61 thority. Moreover, they ··are limited to statS.Ct ]020 (1041) (infra I! S, 0); and flee the dis.c\1sslon of "full faith and _credit to st8iutes," infra -utes, .and not concerned with rules of com§ n. "It would be a serious breach in our ConstImon (decisional) law.e In both respects tutional system If the protection given In interstate


I j

This practice, equally enrly. raised the qucstlon wbat use there was "for any legislature to pass a law for the protection of the weak and nPc:eSSitous." Depau T. Humphreys, S Mnrt., N.S.• 1,80 (La.l82D). See In general Ebrenzweig, Adbeslon Contracts in the Conflict of Laws, G3 CoI.L.Re\,. 10j2 (l003); intra § 182.

matters were wbolly depeildent on the formal nature of tlle stnte law InTolved-statutc· or common law." Cheatbnul. Federal Control of Conflict of Laws, 6 Vand.L.UeT. 581,602 (1953). Sec also infra § D note 3-1. 7. For n bibliograpby about -this "'teac:ber and wrIter. \1Orl\·nllOO since Stor,"'s time," see Oheatham, Amer. lcan Theories of Conflict of Laws: Tbelr Role and Utility. 58 Bnn·.L.ReT. 861. S6S (l94G); and partieulnrly Griswold, Mr. Beale ond the Conflict of Lal\"S. no Han·.L.Rel·. 600 (1943); HardlnJt. Josepb Henry Deale: Pioneer. 2 l\lo.L.lte,·. 131 (103i,. On ·'Ie~­ islative jurisdiction", see Infra at notes 27 if.. § G note 3. Tort conflicts law. now the main source of this doctrine, "infra § 9. was unknown to Story. It should never bave been treated In analogy to contracts. J. A. C. Smith. Torts and the Conflict of Laws, 20 Mod.L.ReT. (1957). SO<! infra I 211. 8. Supra 13 note 4.

1 I


... Storr 258. Slfmlficantly, Story's main authorities for this assumption were the wrltln~s of tbosc '-ery eontlnental jurists ,,-lto. foUolTing in the foot.c;tcpf: of the statutlsts (§ 2 note 10). bad "endea"ored to eollect prInciples, which ou~bt to regulate this subject among all nations." and wbose efforts be had rejected as adapted to "a common empire" ratller than to Independent nations (at 27). .~. 1 Beale, Contfict of Laws (1935) 812. The exception omitted in this quotation, 1. e., that concerning the state's power over its citizens abroad, is not here pertinent. See also Beale, The JurIsdiction of a Sovereign State, 36 Barv.L.ReT. 241 (1923). 6. All througb the law of conflict of laws this distlnction between statute and common law (once jos. tified In a country with a universal common law) has lost its standing. Of. e. g. the overruling of Swlft v. Tyson, 41 U.S. 1 (1842) (requIring the fed. eral coul't& 1D diversity cases to apply the statutory



9. 1 Beale. A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws 0916) 105 ff. See also Beac:b, Uniform Interstate Enfo~ ment of Vested Rigbts. 27 Yale W. 656 (1918). 10. Rest H 1, 42 ft. Concerning the continuing identification of the Restatement with the theory of vested rigbts. see Cheatham, American Theories of Conflict of Laws: Tbeir Role aDd Utility, 58 HarT. L.Rev. 361, 385 (1945); Cavers, Tbe ~o ''Local




§ 4



The vested rights doctrine functions in the whenever our super-laws (public internationfield of choice 'of law as a counterpart to a allaw and the Constitution) refuse to define theory of super-national judicial jurisdic- the conditions of such "vesting" -and this tion. U Using a common denominator, it is true in the vast majority of confiicts may be said that under the latter theory a cases.I ' But if we are to recognize this failforeign judgment is entitled to recognition if, ure, we must overcome the strong support and only if, a right is "vested" in the plain- which super-law theories of conflicts have tiff by a· foreign oourt "having jurisdiction" received in the opinions and writings of three under a super-law. Similarly, we now learn, great judges, in the Restatement, and in otha foreign cause of action should be entitled to er writings of well-lmown scholars. recognition if, and; only if, it is "vested" unHolmes, Hand and Goodrich. Justice der a foreign law "having jurisdiction" under Holmes frequently based his opiniOns in cona super-law. IS Both theories 13 must fail fiicts cases on the tacit or express assumpLaw" Theories. 63 Harv.L.Rev. 822. S23 (1f)-;jOl. This tion of a "transcendental body of law outtheory hns been tra<:e(l throu~h Dicey'S Digest of side of any particular State," whose very the T.a.\v of England \vUh Reference to the Con diet of Laws (lS96) nnd Hollnnd's J.!lcments of Juri:spru- existence he denied so vigorously elsewhere. JIS tlence (1800) directly to Huber's Prnelectiones. Thus only a body of law which endows each Yntemn, supra· § 2 note 1. With its assnmption of n snper·nntional legal order. it is closely akin to state with the "power" to create obligathat of the :statutists ti ~ note 10), anti Inconsistent tions JS and rights entitled to recognition and
with the Uestatcrs' announcement that "the only llnv In force in the sovereign state is its own law." Rest. f 1(1). But see Cheathnm. supra. at 3R5: ill. Problems nnd l(ethoda.ln ConOlct or Laws, DI) nee.. 231. 2S7-~88 (1000); Cnr8well. The Doctrine of Vestoed Rights in Private International La\V, S Int. &: Comp.L.Q. 268 (1059). II. The same function. served in England by the theory of "obligations." Schibsby v. Westenholz, L.R. 6 Q.B. 155 (1810): Infra note 1212. This analogy wns abetted by a shift In the con·

enforcement by other states, can explain such statements as that the determination of the exchange rate: (as of the date of breach rather than the date of judgment) flows "from fundamental theory"; I' or that the constitutionality of nonforfeiture statutes of the lex contractus is based on "the first principles of legal thinking. It IS
more clearly defined meaning of the Roman concept. ''Obllgatio est juris vinculum quo necessitate nstringimur allcujus solvendae rei. . • ." lnst. 3. 13. Of. Walsh v. ~e\v York &: New England R. R.• 160 llass. 571. 30 N.E. 584 (18041: l[ulhall v. Fallon. 1iO :\Iass. 266, 51 N.E. 386 (1000): Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Brown, 234 U.S. ;H2. 34 S.Ct. D53 (1013); Zimmennan v. Sutherlaud. 2n U.S. 253, 47 S.Ot. 625 (l0'l7); Fanners Loan &: Trust Co. v. Minnesota, 2SO U.S. :!O-I. 216, 00 S.Ct. 08. 10"l (1030) (dissent). See nlso Frnnkfurter, J .• in T.e,·inson v. Deupree, 345 U.S. 648. i3 S.Ct. 914 (19-;)3).

Even Judge Learned· Hand's "local law' theory," 19 though rejecting Justice Holmes' conception of foreign duties as existing under the foreign law,lo remains one of "divided allegiance." It It repeats as an axiom the assumption of a "foreign" tort (or contract)· whose place is predetermined by an implied super-national standard.H Moreover, even this theory assumes a super-law under which "people cannot by agreement substitute the law of another place. Some law must impose the obligatiop, and the parties have nothing whatever to do with that. • "23 This conception of confiicts law


cept of condlcts hl\v itself. The comity element of Story's teaching is concerned with relations between sovereigns, and thus truly a concept of. international law. But as Story knew. the law of conftlcts is "ch1efty seen and felt· In its appUcatlon to the com· mon business of private persons, and rarely rIs[lng] to the dignity of national • • • controversies." Story O. It was this realization that Inter induced Lord Blackburn to deny. the law of France the pow· er "to bind the whole \vorld" by a judgment which. lacking "jurisdlctlon"~ falled validly to lmpose an (ubiquitous) "obligation" on the defendan'. Sch1bsby v. Westenholz, supra note 1L Though circular in charactel'-whether or not such an obligation exists must. like "jurisdiction," again be determined by supernational concepta-tbJs terminology which Is keyed to the individual rather than the sovereign. justifted perhaps the use of the term ''private international law". First adopted by Story' (at 9) and Inter abandoned In this country, this term has. as "International private' law." become common usage abroad. Qnd, with its supernational connotation, prepared the ground for the theory of "vested rights."

du droit unique en DIP, 3 Jus Gentium 1 (1051). In Great Britain. Dicey is the protagonist of the \"estett rlJdlts npproach which is fnlly shared by Schmitt· holT. while Cheshire nnd Graveson Incline to a crit· Icni view. See particularly Yntema, Dicey: An American Commentary, 4 IntL.Q. 1 (IWl); id., The Historic Bases of Privnte International Law, 2 Am. J .Comp.L. 201. 3M (1053). .see o.lso Infra § 101 note 1. Next to Dicey, Beale relied primarlly on the Cuba" scholar Bustamente. Deale, Conftlct of Laws (11)16) 109 t. For continental law In general. see e. g. wen· IeI'. Der Schutz der wohlerworbenen Reehte 1m IPR (1034); llUiler. Del' Grundsatz del' woblerworbenen Redlte 1m IPR (1035); Nussbaum 26 fr.; Wichsert Der Begrilf der wohlerworbenen Recbte 1m IPB (11lS6). See also infra f 211 note 38.
14. Infra note 31: § 9.

15. Black &: White Taxicab &: Transfer Co. v. Brown &: Yellow Taxicab &: Transfer Co•• 216 U.S. 518, 532. 533. 48 S.Ct. 404, 408, 409 (1928) (dissenting opinion). It is this denial which has made the Justice the object of bitter attacks. See. e. g.. 1fcK1nnon. The Secret of llr. Justice Holmes (19(5(). But see Friedmann, Legal Theory (4th ed. 1060) 301-309 for a detached re-appraisal. Of. The Western Maid. 257 U.S. 410, 432. 42 S.Ct. 150, 160 (1022), where Holmes denled the existence of·a ''mystic over-law. • • . When a case- Is sald to be governed by foreign law • • • that is only a short way of saying that for this Ptf1'pose the sovereign power takes up a rule suggested from without aDd makes it part of . Its own rules."
16. The Justice preferred the Latin term "obligatio"



13. These theories are·' not limited to' this country. For Germany, see lnfl'a § 106 notes 66, 61: for Franco; infra 1106 notes 45. 46: for Italy. infra §

106 note 26; and for Greece, Vallindas, Le principe

[Slater v. Mexican Nat. R. R., 194- U.S. 120. 12~ 24 S.Ct. 381. 583 .(1004)] to the English word "oblJgation", perhaps because of the broader scope' and

Hnrt. Posith'ism nnd the ~E>paratIon of Law and lIornis, i t Hal'\".I... Rev. 593 (19581. 19. ". • • no court can enforce any law but thnt of Its own so\·erclgn." Gniness v. lUlieI', 201 F. 768, 11. Hicks v. Guiness. 200 U.S. 71, SO. 46 S.Ct. 46. 41 iiO (S.D.N.Y.lIl231. nll"l 200 F. a38 (2d Clr. 1024), (1025). See infra. t 1D-l note 12afT'.1 with modiOcntlons sub nom. Hicks v. Gnlness. suprn note Ii. where Justice Uolmes referred to a 18. lIutua! Life Ins. Co. ,'. Llebing. 200 U.S. 209, 214. "liability already fixed by law." See also Hand, J .• 42 S.Ct. 461. 468 (10021. Rheinstein. supra. § 2. note In Irving Trust Co. v. lIaryland Cnsnnlty Co.• 83 F. 1. Das Kollisionsrecht. etc.. at ;»53. ~uspectS that Jug. 2(1168 (2d Clr. 1036). If the fonlm looks to the law tice Holmes used this phrase with a "suppressed or a foreign I;Overeign. it is merely to Impose "nn obsmile". This tlssumption is supported by the fnct ligation of Its own, as: nearly homologous as p0stbat Holmes. when not speaking from the bencb. up. sible to that aris1n~ in the place where the tort parently took a considerably different view. In reoceurs." Gulness v. 1U11er. supra. at 770. See alsosponse to Sir Frederic Pollock's commendation of The James lIcGee. 300 F. 93. 06 (S.D.N.Y.ID24);' Pillet [Snr un point peu ape~ tie 1'1 doctrine de Direction der Dlsconto-GeseUschnft v. United States Dicey. 4 Rev.Dr.Int. (3d Ser. 1923) 34~], Holmes Steel Corp.• 300 F. 141. i.J4 (S.D.N.Y.I024), aff'd 26'T cnlls it a "humbug" If "the virtuous Plllet" thinks U.S. 22. 45 S.Ct. 201 (1925); Siegmann v. lIeyer. 100 that private intenMltlonal law means more thQD F.2d 361 (2d Clr. 1038): Scheer v. Rockne Motors the law actually applied in each case "because the Corp.• 68 F.2tl 042, M4 (2d Clr. 1934). Or. Donley. Court speakln~ for the Sovereign damn chose to The lIodem Inftuence in the ConJUct of Laws. 36 • • • ,t 2 Holmes-PoUock Letters (1041) 131, 138. W.Va.L.Q. 217 (1930); de Slovi!re. The Local Lnw Severn.l reasons ha\"e been suggested for the Jug. Theory and its Implications in the Conflict of Laws. tice's rigid judicial (though not personal) attitude, 41 Harv.L.Rev. 421 (1028); Yntema. The Hornbook so strangely contrnsting with hls renllstic approach Method and the Conftiet of Laws, 31 Yale L.J. ·168 to most other subjects. Lack of knowledge In the (1928); Nussbaum 36field, traumatic predilection for the power concept due to early experience as a soldier [ReibUch. The 20. Of. Holmes J., in Die Deutsche Bank FllJale Oonftlcts of Laws Philosophy of ~Ir. Justice Holmes. Numberg v. Humphrey, 272 U.S. 511. 520. 41 S.Ot. 28 Geo.L.J. 22; 23 (19SO)), as well ns adherence to a 166. 161 (1026), enforciDg an obllption Unrising from rigidity "Innate In the common law" [Nussbaum 18 German law alone." II. 30] have been blamed for this deviation. It WOuld, however, seem more likely that Justice 21. Freund. Chief Justice Stone and the Conftlct of Laws. 59 Harv.L.Rev. 1210. 1211 (1048). Holmes was prompted by an ideology similar to that of Joseph Story and Joseph Beale j i. e. ~e ~. Scheer v. Rockne Motors Corp., 68 F.2d 942 (2d earnest, though frustrated, desire to promote and Cir. 1934), infra § 170 note 11. See n1so e. g. New stabilize interstate and International relations. See England Mutual LIfe Ins. 00. v. Spence, 104 F.2d also Howe. Justice Oliver Wendell. Holmes, The 665 (2d Oir. 1939), infra f 111 notes 4-6. Shaping Years (1951) 183ff.; Krislov, Oliver Wen· 23. E. GerlJ &: Co. v. Cunard S. S. Co.. 48 F.2d 115.dell Hoimes: The Ebb and Flow of Judicial Leg111 (2d Clr. 1931), approved by Judge Hand as lat& endry, 52 N.W.U.L.Bev. 514 (1951). For trenchant 118 1946 in Great Lakes Transit Corp. v. Marceau. criticism. see- Currie, Justice Traynor and the Con· 154 F.2d 623, 621 (2d Cir. 1048). See also LouIs.., ftlet of Laws, 13 Stan.L.Rev. 119; 720 (1961). See Dreyfus v. Paterson Steamships, Ltd., 43 F.2d 824also Llewellyn. The Common Law Tradition (1960) (2d Clr., 1930),: and In general Ehrenzweig, Adhe181 (Hoimes' "con1llct8 cases are nearly' as· bad'" as sion Contracts In the Con1llet of Laws, 53 CoLL-Bev. his bailment cases). FortUnately, when Holmes was 1072, 1073 (1953). Judge Hand's view- ls shared b~ d.early wrong. "he was always wrong clearly."





is based on what judge Hand himself calls 4'legislative jurisdiction"," and is far removed still from Walter Wheeler Cook's definitive break with compromise which will be discussed 'presently (§ 5).13 And so is the teaching of one of our foremost con1licts judges and writers, Judge Goodrich. Although he has called for "yielding place to new," 18 much of his teaching continues to follow the Restatement in its original and revised edition.

ne Restatement. According to a draft
for the new Con1licts Restatement "a state violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if i~ applies its law to a state of facts over which ·it has no legislative jurisdiction (Home Insurance CO'~ v. Dick, 281 U.s. 397, 50 S.Ct. 33~ (1930»; it likewise would violate due process if it were to apply the law of another state which has no' such jurisdiction (ct. Young v. Masci, 289 U. S. 253, 53 S.Ct. 599 (1933»." 1'7 As shown elsewhere, neither proposition is borne out by the authority relied upon. 28 Moreover, both propositions are either incorrect or so vague as to be inapplicable. For we learn that the "legislative jurisdiction" underlying them, exists in a state "if its contacts with a
Cheshire 224. But fI~ Reese,"Book ReTipw, 42 Minn. L.Re,\". 500, 50S (19~); and infra § 170 note 1.
24. Siegmann '\". Meyer, 100 F.2d 807 (2d Clr. 1938). See Cheatham, Federal Control of Conflict of Laws. G Vand.L.Itc". OSl, "58G (19ii3).

person, thing or. OCCUITence are su1Jicient 10 make it reasonable .to apply that state's law to create or affect legal interests." 19 'I11is would mean in effect that a choice of law might be prohibited by due process if unreasonable; or required if reasonable. But such a test would have to rely either on a nonexisting super-law determining the location of persons, things, and occurrences; or on simple principles of choice of law which, if they have ·ever prevaDed, have long yielded to prohibitive diversification and refinement.so Finally, the concept of legi~tive jurisdiction is based on an analogy betWeen foreign judgments and laws, which has ceased to ap·ply. To refuse recognition to a foreign judgment can perhaps be said to refuse deference to an act of another sovereign-to an expression of his will and opinion. It is true that the same observation. applies .to some extent to the refusal of recognition of those foreign statutes which concern concrete individual situations. Older statutes often were of this kind, and their similarity to judgments may indeed have justified a concept of "legislative jurisdiction." But no such similarity exists between judgments and modern statutes phrased in general and abstract tenns. If we choose, nevertheless, to apply such statutes of a foreign sovereign, we do so although the latter will ordinarily remain unaware, and may even disapprove; of such application. On the other hand, we violate neither international comity nor foreign legislative jurisdiction if we refuse such application. Both observations seem particu29. Rest. Seeond, Tent. Draft No. 3 (1956) 22 (I 48e).

UNITARIAN AND PLURALISTIC THEORIES. 12 ~~?~ . § I) .~: Jarly compelling in relation to foreign deci- an ubiquitous obligation. .And unitarian sal· :~~:'. "Sional law. Thus,.in l:Ontrast 10 the recog- 'vation is occasionaDy even ~ from 3


-gj;:: nition'ofjudgments, the "recognition" offor.:;;- ;eign "laws" cannot be based on the accept.. :, :alice of a specific foreign sovereign act. As

will·be shown more fully below,"Such recognf1:lon is equivalent to a simple choice of law in "the forum's discretion unless this choice can be.derived from constitutional command Only in the latter case may we speak of legjsJative jurisdiction.31 .-

new international orde~,~ beyond· present ef· forts to revitalize int~atlona1 trea:tY .sowtions (§ 7) or, more reaustica11y, in.-8. comparative approach pooling the experiences of aD countries. 33 On the other .hand, there are those who have admitted defeat and, forswearing both international and national schemes, have sought refuge in.1l general appeal to justice,:W 'or in..special rules for the

We have seen that Holmes kd the Be- equitable adj~~e~~ of C.Onfiicts ~es.315, In staters have attempted to improve on Story's ~ this turmo~ JudiCIal WlSdom.an~ unagmacompromise between an imperfect pluralistic tive ~olarship have -been ~~mg slowly doctrine of comity and an imperfect unitari- and VIgorously for a new begmmng.
an theory of judicial jurisdiction, by deriving a perfect pluralism from a perfect unitarian ·order. Learned 'Hand hopes to escape inconsistency by a new pluralistic definition of
81. .As 10 repeated attempts of the 17. S. Supreme Court to overcome these dlfficnlties In certain fields of choice of law, see Infra § 5 notes 1 fl.; § 9 notes 4 ft. Professor Briggs Implies the theoretical unteDabillty of a theory which ~alms full power for each forum to devise Its Own chOice of law rule. ADd, In a series of articles be has attempted to defend "'jurJ8dlctlonal thinking" In view of "'the actual "function and operation" of American conflicts law. Briggs. Utllltl' of the Jurisdictional PrinCiple In a POlicy Centered Conflict of Laws, (} Vand.L.Re'\". 607, '107 (1933); ldo, The Need for the "'Legislative Jurisdictional Princlple." 89 Minn.L.Rel'. 517 (1955); ld., 4 Int.Comp.L.Q. 329 (1955) i ld., Tbe Jurlsdlc:tlon· al-Oholce-oC-Lnw in Conflict Rules, 61 Ban'.L.Re'r. 1165 (19-48); Id.• The Dual Relationship of the Rules of Conflict of Laws in tbe Succession Field, 15 Mlss.U. Ti (1948).

§ 5. In.a series of': cases froin 1914 to 1930,1 the Supreme Court bad, under the Due Process Clause, in accordance with the super-law trends of that period, 'assumed the ubiquity of rights and obligations of contracting parties "acquired under" the law of the place of contracting. But as early a~' 1918, Justice Brandeis, -in a dissenting Opirl' ion, expressed the pluralistic view that thes~ rights and obligations can very well be detennined by other laws. For "There is no constitutional limitation by virtue of' which a statute enacted by a ·State 'in the exercise of the police power is necessarily void, if, in its operation, contracts made in another State may be affected." I And the samf
I. New "fork Life Ins. Co. '\". Bead. 234 U.S. 149. ~ 8.Ct. 879 (1914); New "fork Life Ins. Co. '\". Dodge 246 U.S. 357, 38 S.Ct. 837 (1918); Mutual Life Ins Co. T. LieblDg, 239 U.S. 209. 42 S.Ct. 467 (1922); Home Ins. Co. '\". Dick, 281 U.S. 39i, 50 S,Ct. 38! (1930). See also John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Ce. v. Yates, 299 U.S. 178, 5; S.Ct. 20 (1936); Aetor, Life Ins. Co. v. Dunken. 266 U.S. 389, 45 S.Ot. 12!(1924).

25. cr. Cavers. The Two "Local Law" Tbeories, G3 Han-.L.Re\·. B2:!, 832 (1950), su~estlng that Jud,re Band's theory should be distinguished from Cook's "local law tbeory" as tbe "homologous rlght theory," thus Indicating an obvious affinity to the theory of "vested" rights. 26. Goodrich, Yielding Place to New: Rest '\". Motion in the Conflict of Laws, 50 ColL.ReT, 881 (1950). See also Goodrich, p. Y.
27. Rest. Second, Tent. Draft No.3 (1956) 20.

Attempts In later drafts to reconcile this fundamen· tallst creed with existing law and need wlll be discussed throughout Part Two of this treatise. 28. As to Iiome Ins. Co. v. Dick, 281 U.S. 397, 50 S.Ct. 338 (1930), see Infra t 0 note 83; § 9 note 18; § 40 note 7. l:oung '\". Masel, 289 U.S. 253, 53 S.Ct. . 599 (1933) merely upholds against an attack under .due process, .application of a foreign statute.

30. No longer does the lex domlcll11 govern succession to movables; or the lex loel delicti all torts; or the lex contractus all contracts. No longer Is the lex situs a safe guide for ascertaining the law applicable to transactioDs concerning (intangible) tbings. In addition. a law of con1llct of con1lict of laws has been an essential part of ou~law of conflicts ever since Kahn's [1 Abb. IPR 48 (1928)] and Bartln's Investigations [De 1'Imposslblllte d'arriver n la suppression definitive des confllts des lois, 24 J.Dr.Int. Pro 225, 46G, 720 (1897)]. \,

32. See e. 1;., Stevenson, The Relationship of Private Intematlonal Law to Public International law, 52 ColL.Rel'. 561 (1952); Nussbaum, Rise and Dee:Une of the Lew of Nations Doctrine In the Con1llct of Laws, 42 ColL.BeT. 189 (1942); Riesenfeld. Book Review, 8 U.Chl.D.aev. 103 (1935); SOhn, New Bases for Solutlon of Conflict of Laws Problems, 55 Ban. L.Rev. 978 (1942); Cowles, Judicial Review In CoDftlct of Laws, 21 Nordlsk Tidsskrlft for International Bet 51 (1951); Infra § 6 DOte 40; 11211l0tes 9, 10.

83. The protagOnist of this approach Is Ernst Rabel,
wbose monumental work. Con1llct of Laws: A ComParative Study (1945, 1947, 1950, 1958),.1B a unique

source of information. For an interesting related approach ("equivalence") see Vlscher. Die rechtsverglelehenden Tatbestlinde 1m IPR (1953). 84. See !ntra § 121 notes 1-4. !S. See Infra 1121 notes 5-8.


New York Life Ins. Co. T. Dodge, 877 at 382. See also Kryger '\". WllsOJ 37 S.Ct. 34 (1916), per Brandeis, J'f II




§ 5

§ 5




judge, speaking for the majority of the Court twelve years later, declared at least the lex. solutionis entitled to the same recognition as the lex contractus. 3 Similar skepticism about the sole power of the lex contractus had long been expressed by other judges.' It was Justice Stone, however, who most consistently fought the underlying unitarian ideology, thus countering at the same time the Court's repeated attempts at establishing the vested· rights theory not only through the alleged requirements of due process but also through the back door of full faith and credit (§ 9).
As to. due process,. speaking for the Court

law.e This decision was in conspicuous contrast to Stone's attitude concerning the recognition of foreign judgments, where he saw the very purpose of the full faith and credit clause in altering "the status of the several states as independent foreign sovereignties." , Elsewhere, he refused to· recognize or to deny a state's jurisdiction to tax "by the choice of a label . by definition previously agreed upon." 8 We may well conclude that since Story "no member of the court has contributed more • to confiict of laws." 9 Chief Justice Stone's rebellion against Justice Holmes' "fundamentalisf' power ideology in conflict of laws finds its counterpart in Cook's and Lorenzen's "local law' theory directed against the Restatement and other rem":!,~~!,?!-Y'& concession to the superla\V~ntmq;Sd~oD;l.00· Revolutionary at the

only five years after the publication of the Restatement (§ 4), Justice Stone found that at least two states.-the state of the contract and the state of the tort,-were "competent to legislate" on workmen's compensation without- denial of due process.1i And as to full faith and credit, he rejected this technique in the same case as a means of intro-· ducing a constitutional system of choice of
3. Home Ins. Co. v. Dick, supra note 1. Though thus extended. the idea of legislative jurisdiction was. however, maintnlned In this case. as it was in John· Hancock lIutoa! Lite Ins. Co. ,'. Yates, supra note 1. also decided by Justice Brandeis. and in hlR·unpublished opinion in Rtratheam S. S. Co. v. DlUon, 252 U.S. 348, 40 S.Ot. 350 (1920) (which, too, however, avoids the consequences of the conceded vested rights doctrine).. Bickel. The Unpublished Opinions of lIr. Justice Brandeis (1951) 43.

~ ~ I~:-::
. supra note 5. v. Hunt. 320 U.S. 430, 439. Of. Cheatham. Res Ju_~·_.o:iUL.U.I.I. and Oredlt Clause: lIftg. V'. Hunt. 44 CoLL.Rev. 330 .!!IRl1tw4!e1l·:the prohlbltlon of the due p:=I=I~~=~~~the courts of the state fl may be taken, and the mandate the fnll faith· and credit clanae, acttng upon tbe state to which they may be taken. there Is an area which federal authority· baa not oecupled.'· Yarborough v. Yarborough, 200 U.S. 202, 213. 214, U4 S.Ot. 181, 185. 186 (1933). See Ehren. zweig. Interstate Recognition of Support Duties, .J2 Cnllt.L.ltev. 382 (1954); Intra I 84. 8. Senior v. Braden. 205 U.S. 422, 433. 438, 55 S.Ot. 800, 803, 803 (1935). See also lWlwaukee County v. lIt E. White Co•• 296 U.S. 268, GEl S.Ot. 229 (1981). 9. Gheatham, Stone on Condlct of Laws, 46 Ool.L. Rev. 710, 733 (1946). See also Mason, Harlnn Fiske Stone (1056). 10. Cook, The Logical and Legal Bases of the Confilet of Laws (1942). For a list of authors follOWing Cook's approach, see Cheatham, American Theories of Condlc:t of Laws: Their Role and Utlllty, 58 Harv.L.Rev. 361, 366. 389 (194G). See also Oavers. The Two uLecal Law" Theories. 63 Harv.L.Rev. 822 . - (1950). Lorenzen·s writings are collected 10 bls Selected Articles on the Oondlct of Laws (1041). See particularly Development In the Contllc:t of J..aws, 1002-1042, Id., at p. 203; and Loreuzen and Hellman. Tbe Restatement of the Con1l1c:t of LaWS; 83 U.. Pa.L.Rev. 5M (1935).


t. Of. Justice lIcKenna In American Fire Ins. Co. v.
King Lumber Co.. 2!j() U.S. 2. 39 S.Ot. 431 (1910); Justice Taft in National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Wanberg, 260 U.S. 71, 0.13 S.Ot. 32 (1922).

Alaska Packers Ass'n v.

Industrial Accident

Comm'n. of California, 204 U.S. 532, 35 S.Ct. ISlS (1035). Ot. Beale, Social Justice and Business Costs -A S~dy In the Legal History of Today. 49 Harv.L. Rev. a93, 603 (1036). See also Pac11lc Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm'n, 306 U.S.
403. 59 S.Ot. 629 (1939); and Justice Stone's concurring opinion In Bradford Electric Llgbt Co. v. . Olapper, 286· U.S. 1~, 163, 52 S.Ot. 511 (1082). For an anal;ysls of· his earJler opinion in Seeman.v. Phil-

herence to a local law theory coul~ perpetu.. ate old errors and induce new oneS. It must suffice at this point to mention such problems (to be discussed in the Second Part) as those concerning characterization and renvoi, or the treatment of foreign law as a "fact" for purposes of proof, review, and judicial notice.u Finally; the local law theory, though having effectively fought its opponents, has "the· defects of its qualities. Laying the em· phasis on the freedom of the forum state to do what it wishes, it may engender the unfortu.. nate attitude that the freedom should be wide. ly used. While in the early stages of the off· type cases of any field of law it is essential that courts have freedom to achieve justice, in the developed stages and the ordinary eases the need is for doctrine which will point to the appropriate decision. So counterbalancing emphasis is needed on the wisdom of ordinarily employing the forum law as guide in foreign transactions." Ie Fortunately, American courts, though often speaking in legalistic terms, have in es. sence remained unaffected by sterile ideologies and have kept open the way to a more realistic approach. Above all, courts have 5.. AGAINST "NO-LAW': 01JTLOOK resorted to exceptions such as ''public pOlley" To be sure, only a local law theory can ad· in order to reach the proper result where a mit the basic character of the lex fori which, rigid formula would have sacrificed common in Part Two, will be established as a leading sense· to "logic".l'f But what at 1irst appears theme of this treatise, by historical, compar- 15•. Infra H 110-111, 121-129. ative and pragmatic analysis.1I Moreover, 16. Cheatham, supra note 10, at 388. ". • • the this theory most easily avoids pseudo-probremorseless logic of the dogma of sovereignty has driven the doctrine of condlets law to the verge lems such as. those concerning post-factual of' a theorettc chaos where its acolytes, bemused' by' changes in the "applicable" foreign law,13 nationalistic positivism. are likely to lose the vision of the grand objective in provincial worship of the and pseudo-arguments such as that concern· lex fori." Yntema, The Historic Bases of Private log the nonavailability of "machinery" for International Law, 2 Am.J.Comp.L. 291, 312 (lOGS). See also Id•• The Restatement of the Law of Conthe enforcement of "foreign" rights and. obflict of Laws, 36 CoLL.Bev. 183 (1936); Id., The Obligations." But in other ways dogmatic adjectives of Private International Law, 3U Oan.B.Rev.
II. Cook 41.. 12. Infra II 104-108. On the "homeward trend", see ~ussbaum 31. 70. 13. Id. at 69 with· further references. 14. Of. Slater v. lIesican Nat. R. R., 194 U.S. 120. 24 S.Ot. 581 (1904); Infra I 31 note 31; ! 211 note

become the theoretical basis of virtuaIly an current research in the field, including Stumberg's and Leftar's important texts. ContrarY to the ReStatement, which Cook has shOwn to be fallacious in this respect, a state "can", indeed, affect persons, things and acts anywhere in the world, subject only to positive rules of international or constitutional law which are not inherent "in the constitution of the legal universe [so that] by far the larger number of the rules for the solution of cases involving the confiict of laws do not relate to the 'power' or 'jurisdiction' of the particular court or state "U Thus the classic compromise, which combined a nationalist, pluraliStic assertion of sovereignty tempered only by comity between nations, with an internationalist, unitary notion of rights and obligations vested under a foreign legislative jurisdiction, could be considered obsolete-were it not for the fact that Cook's and Lorenzen's "local law theory" which supplanted this compromise, has left us without ~ gqide. .

udelphia Warehouse Co., 214 U.S. 403. 41 S.Ct. 626
l1927), equally "renouncing a geographical test In favor of a teleological one." see Freund, supra § 4 note 21. at 1214. See ~ Pink v. A. A. A. Highway Express Co., 314 U.S. 201. 62 S.Ot. 241 (1941), reb. den. 314 U.S. 116, 62 S.Ot. 471 (1942).

721. 126ff. (1931); de Slov~re, The Local Law Theory and Its Implications In tJie ConJUct of Laws, 41 Harv.L.Rev. 421 (1928). ConcernIng a slmUar controversy In German conftlcts law. see Kegel, Begrill'sund Interesseojurlsprudenz 1m IPR. Festschrift Bans Lewald 259 (1953). For an authoritative French analysis see Batiffol, Aspects philosophlques du- D~ (1956). 17. Intra H 110-120.



§ 5

'.§ 6



'as an exception based on public policy or oth- treatise I shall state and explain the scope of er general considerations, at some point must 'my agreement with his approach (§ 122), become a new 'COnflicts rule demanding for- and attempt to justify my own (§ 124). mulation without regard to dogmatic concepLaws. 10 Stanf.L.Be\,. 205 (1958); id., Mutuality tions such as vested rights, legislative jurisof Estoppel: Llmlts of the Bemh4rd. Doctrine, 9 diction, or local sovereignty. Stanf.L.Bel'. 281 (l9lS7); Iel., Change of Venue and the Confilct of Laws. 22 U.Oh1.L.Be,·. 405 (19ll5): In a series of articles, conclusively proving id., Full Faith and Credit to Foreign Land Dethe untenability of traditional a priori crees, 21 U.Ob1.L.Be\'. 620 (1954). See also infrn t 1...'>2 note 5. Other authors have followed a some"rules" in specific fields, Currie has offered what sIm1Jar approach. See infra t 122 note G, and new solutions by isolating and examining cf. Bancock, Cholee-of-Law Policies in Multiple conflicting policies.18 In Part Two of this Contact Cases., 5 Tor.L.J. 133 (1943); Freund. Chief
18. Currie, supra 12 note 17: id .• Married Women's Contnlets: A Study in ConfiictoOf-Laws Method, 25 U.Chl.L.Re'\". 22i (105S); id., SU)"\"in} of Actions: AdJ.udication versus Automation in the Con1llct of


Justice Stone and the Conflict of Laws, 59 Barv.L. Re\,. 1210 (1946). See also Bellman. Judicial Method and Economic Objectives In Con1l1ct of Laws. 43 'Yale L.J. 1082 (1934): Cheatham and Beese, Choice of Appl1eable Law, 52 ColL.Rev. 959 (1952).

t 'f



Secondly, constitutional limitations on the ,solution of interstate conflicts were still in their infancy. In both respects fundamental c,hanges have occurred through the ·last century. The country is split into fifty-odd separate jurisdictions with widely differing statutory and decisional rules which defy co-ordination un- ; der any supernational or natural formula. i And any such co-ordination that has proved possible under the Constitution, is almost entirely limited to the relations between the several states. For these and other reasons to be summarized presently, it has become advisable to treat many interstate and international contlicts separately. 'I
Du Boif', The Sip:nlficance in Conflict of Laws of the Distinction hetween Interstate and Intc:rnational Transactions, 17 Minn.L.Rev. SG1, 302, 380 (1933). But during thnt early period Interregional contilcts were nC'lt jllxtnJlo~ed ,,·1th those arising between sovereign notions. For further analysis and criticism, see Ehrenz,,'eip:. Interstate and International Confilcts La\\': A Plea for Segregation, 41 Minn.L.Re,·, 717 (1007); DatUro1802. ,. See also Cbentbnnl, American Tbeories of Confiict of Laws: Their Role and Utllity, 58 Ban".L.Re'\". 361, 39-l (1944); Goodrich, Directive or Dialectic, 6 Vand.L.Re\'. 442, 446 (1953) ("Maybe this is parochialism. Dut that is not important it It is right") : Caver&, A Critique of the Choice-of-La\v Problem, 4i Ba)"\".L.lle,\". liS, 203 (1983); Cowen, American· AustralJan Prl,\"ate International Law (1957) 9; Fal·


As international and even federal confiicts . law were nearly abandoned (§§ 7ff.) , as the diversity of the common and staWtory laWS of the several states grew, and interstate commerce and migration increased, the need for definite and uniform conflicts rules became ever more pressing. Such needs have been met by widening constitutional control (§ § 9, 40) , even beyond long acknowl~d compulsions in the law of judgment recognition.s Policies developing this control 9 are fundamentally difterent from those which have been determining international conflicts. 'This is also apparent from the fact ,that legislation is frequently limited to interconbridge. International and Intranational Cases, Essays on the CoD1lict of Laws (2d ed. 1954) 264a. (comparing Canada aDd the United States). _In favor of the position taken In the text: Caver&, 47 Cal.L.Re'·. 414. 415 (1959); Currie, 73 Bnr\'.L. Bev. 801, 803 (1960); Hazard, 24 !fo.L.Re\'. 400 (1959):. Beese, 12 J .Lep:.Ed. 3Q:i, 30i (1.959); Weintraub, 45 Iowa L.Rc,". 070. 982 (1900); Yiannopoulof.:, 21 La.L.RC!\,. '510, 524-52:i (10011. Ree aiM wltb rertaln rese)"\"ations. Cheatham. 4ri A.H.A.J. 1100 (1009) ; Bheinste1n, 8 Pub.L.J. 5ril, 657 (1959). But see }t'alk, 69 Yale L.J. 1311, 1319,1321 (1960).
8. lIills T. Duryee. 7 Craneb (11 U.S.) 481 (1813); infra § 4i. As to the pref;Cnt relntlon between tile two conflicts laws ill this field, compare Reese, The Status In this Countl'y of Judgments Bendered Abroad, 50 ColL.Rc'\". 783 (1950), 'lOW, Reese and Johnson, The Scope of Full Faith and Credit to Judgments, 49 Co1.L.Re\'. 153 (1949); and Reese, Full Faith and Credit to Foreign EqultF Decrees, 42 Iown L.Re\'. 183 (19::;7). Or compare Ehrenzweig, Ret'Ognitlon of Custody Decrees Rendered Abroad, 2 Am.J.Comp.L. 16i (10::;3), ,,,WI, EhrellZWeil,:, Inter· state Itecognltion of Custody Decrees. 51 Micb.L. Re\'. 845 (19GS).

state Full Faith and Credit between the states of the~'Union would and should grow if finally divorced from'the precarious concept of "comity" between foreign nations. It And Interstate Commerce limitations on choice of law, so peremptorily and yet so unsuccessfully' announced by Justice Holmes,ll! may thus gain a new·lease on life. Some of the differences between underlying policies have resultecf in each field in the development of large sectors which lack counterparts in the other. Problems occupying the courts in interstate relations, such as the "jurisdiction" of the judgment court (§ 57), wrongful death statutes (§ § 38, 40), statutes of limitations (§ 37),13 or workmen's compensation (§ G3},1t are compara10. Set> e. g. N.Y. Decedents' Est-Law 1100, limiting the recGJZ1lltion of foreiJn) administrators to those appointed In a sister state. 'Infra t It> note SG.


§ 6. Traditionally, ever since Story's Commentaries.t American texts and casebooks in the law of confiict of laws have treated interchangeably cases and principles relating to international and to interstate problems.t~, When Story wrote, 125 years ago, this practice may have been justified. In the first place, a general commercial and common law largely avoided interstate conflicts situations, 3 and those few conflicts which arose from a slowly spreading disruption of this general law were held solvable under a "law of nations" " derived from natural-law ideals I> and Continental traditions. 6
I. Supra § 2 note 3.

'I.sponsible misleadingofword troublc." cardozo. J., in "Tht' "comltj' ha~ beenrefor much the

Loucks '\". SmudaI'd on Co., 224 N.Y. 99, 111, 120 N.E. 19S, 201 (1918); supra f 2 note 20.

2. The onlr eSl'f'ption b: Rorer'~ Amerlcnn InterStnte Law (lRiOI width exc1ndl'lI from ill' c(ln~ldcra­ tion itlternRtionul ('Oullit'ts all ~o\'ernecl lJ~ the "doctrim,- of intcmational lnw, or law of nations" (id. at 1). From early beglnninJl!" the difference between these and Interstate t'Onftlcts seems to ha'\"e been keenly felt in the ch'l1lnw state of Louh!lann. LivermOI"e. Dissertations (1828) 13iff, J.'or n new approach, see Cllctltbam Casebook G20ft.

9. Only "In the absence' of proof to the contrarr"
should it be assumed that such t'Ontrol wID result In "a greater degree of t'Omlty, and friendsblp, and kindness" toward a sister state. Bank of Augusta '\". Earle, 18 Pet. (38 U.S.) 519, ~90 (1839). ConceI\'abl.,", recognition (possIbly problblted in Interstate relations by the Due Process Clause) of a foreign judgment lacking jurisdiction under its own la\\', but attributed "international" competency, J:Da,- result in greater "kindness" to an extranational ludgment thaD to that of a sister state. Pemberton '\". Bughes., [1899] 1 Ch. 781, 790. See also infra H ·G9. Concerning the experiences of foreign countries, see Ehrenzwe1g, supra note 6, at 720.
Elnnzwtll Conflict of LaM-2 ~ ....


Supra 12 note 5.

Supra § 2 note 4. S. See Pollock, Tbe History of the Law of Nature: A Preliminary Study, 1 CoLL.Re\'.ll, 2 Jd.131, 188!.
(1001. 10(2).

6. In dc,,, of the interregional basis of much of
early t'Ontinentnl learning (I 2), these traditions have been interpreted as interstate in character.

12. Western Union Teleltraph Co. ,'. Brom., 23-l U.S. 542, 301 S.Ct. 9;;U (1914) (dumuJte!1o uudC!r forum lnw for misdelivery of telea:rram in sister state). Blnck Diamond S. S. Corp. '\". Uohert Stewart &. Sons. Ud•• 33(j U.I:i. 38G. 396, GO S.Ot. 622, 627 (1949,. cites tbe case us stating a "settled prlnciplc" of choice of law applicnhl(' to internatJonal conflicts. Sec also infra § 9 note 22. 13. lu most of the few cases in\'olvlng international conflicts such as Wood &. Sellck, Inc. ,'. Compap:nlc Genernlc Transntlantique, 43 F.2d 941 (2d Cir., 1930) (France) [see also Wheeler T. Soc. Nnt. des Cbemlns de Jt'er }o'\rancais. lOS F.Supp. Gii:!, orl4 (S.D.N.Y. 19:;2)]; Bournins '\". Atlnntlc Mnritlme Co., Ltd., 220 F.2d 1U2 (2d Cir. lOw) (I·UllllDllll: Sinnl '\". Le'\"i, 20~ Mise. GOO, 144 N'.Y.S.2d 31G (lD5=t) (Italy) (see nlflO ,ralle '\". Stockard S. S. Corll., 130 N.Y.S.2d GOO (N.Y. Co.19:;3)]; Gonzales '\". The ArehanJt(!los, 1~ F.Supp. 003 (E.D.Va.l955) (Honduras); '-Goodwin '\". Town· send, 19i F.2d 970 (3d Cir. 1952) (Ontario), thc lex fori in effect prevailed over the defense of foreign limitation. Perkins '\". Benguet ConROl. Min· lng Co., 55 Cnl.App.2d. 720, 132 P.2d 70 (1942), eert. den. 819 U.S. 774, 63 S.Ct. 1435 (1943) is distinguishable as applying Pbllipplne law under a borrowing statute of thc forum. See also Bank of Nova Scotia '\". San Miguel, 196 F.2d 950 (1st Cir. 19l52). Concerning the possible Impact of the parties' citizenship or residence, see § 87 note 16. Sec also infra § 163 Dote S. 14. Some typical problems arising In the international field are discrlmination against nonresident alien






§ 6

§ 6




tively rare in international conflicts. On the "delicate weighing process" as to specific fact other hand, problems relating to CUlTeDCY situations which alone can produce that ratluctuations,15 expropriations (§ 48), or liti- tionality and predictability indispensable for gation concerning aliens,16 are virtually lim- the national or uniform contiicts law of the ited to international transactions. So are future. 18 It may well be that many leading those arising in bankruptcy, antitrust or ad- opinions rendered in cases involving intermiralty, where interstate conflicts are elimi- national contiicts would, if in terms limited nated by a national law; and those problems to such conflicts, have escaped applications concerning negotiable instruments or the in the interstate field which have proved anytransfer of· stock, where interstate conflicts thing but satisfactory.19 Dissatisfaction with are largely avoided by uniform legislation." general formulas may be at least partly reInsistence upon formulas general enough sponsible for the progressive dedication to a to serve both fieldS, may have impeded, and defeatist "proper law" approach,::o and for the may continue to ,impede that patient and "homeward trend" %l so much deplored in interstate law.
dependents [Ant0s7: "I. Stnte Compensntlon Commission. 130 W.Va. 260. 43 S.E.2d 307 (1047)]; ex('lnslon of foreign ncc1dents [Spelnr v. American Ovel'llens .Airlines. SO F.Supp. 344 (S.D.N.Y.1D4i)]; sufficiency of proof [Cntelli v. Bnronne l\.c;socintes. 3 N ••l.Super. 122. 115 A.2ft 617 {l049l: Romano v. Littleton Construction Co.. 05 N.H. 404. 64 A.2d 6D5 (1040); Bnsa Fonndry & lInch. Co. v. Christopoulos, 110 Ind.App. 568. 88 Y.E.2d 602 (1049)): the scope nnd Impact of treaties [(~annone v. Uadory Construction Corp., 285 App.Dlv. ml, 1208. 141 Y.Y.S.2d 311 (1000), ntf"l 1 Y.Y.2d 671. 150 N.Y.S.2d 100 (1956) (ltnly): lllcnz v. Compensation Comm'r. 123 W. Va. 101, 13 S.E.2d 161 (1941); Liberato v. Royer. 270 U.S. GaS. 46 S.Ct. 373 (1026)); and the treatment of allen enemy dependents [Todeva v. Oliver Iron lUning Co.• 232 lUnD. ~ 45 N.W.2d 782 (1051)]. See in general 2 Larson; The Law of Workmen's Compensation (1067) § 63.52·:. also infra § 7 note 34; § 228 notes

In a New York court, the law of an adjOining Canadian province will receive different treatment than the law of Saudi Ambia.22 The treatm4mt ~of uitemational conflicts may not only differ from that of inter·
18. Cheatham and Reese, Choice of the Applicable Law. 52 CoI.L.Rev. 059, D82 (1952). See also Cheatham. A. Federal Xatlon and Con1l1ct of Laws, 22

state con1licts, but may differ as to each foreign country; !S yet, insistence on general for· mulas covering bot.; intemational and inte~­ state contlicts may have prevented recogmtion of this fact. American courts, disregarding even legislation to the contrary,26 will usually require the law of a foreign country (but no longer that of a sister state) to be pleaded and proved. If this requirement is not satisfied, the court may apply its own law in international cases even where the foreign. country has a "law that civilized countries will recognize as adequate."!IS But occasionally a complaint may be dismissed because of failure to prove the law of a foreign country, which is applicable under a conflicts rule developed for interstate relations. Recognition of independent intemational conflicts rules such as those to be discussed presently would preclude such unjust dismissals." Many of the concepts developed by courts primarily to suit the needs of interstate rela.. tions burden international confiicts law unnecessarily. Early stress in this country up23. Note the current publication of bilateral studies hy the Parker School of Foreign and Comparative Law at Colnmbia University (Nussbaum ed.). Of. the studIes by Cowen (Austl'alla) ; Delaume (France) ; Domke (Germany) : Eder (Columbia) : Ebrenzwelg-Fragistas-1:lannopoulo8 (Greece); Ehrenzweig-Ikebara.Jensen (Japan. forthcoming); Etcheberry (Ohlle); Garland (Brnzll); Kollewljn (Netherlands): Nussbaum (Switzerland); PhilIp (Denmark).
24. See infra 1129.

Ry.llt.L.Rev. 109 (1050).
19. See e.g. Scheer v. Rockne ){otors Oorp.. 68 li'.2d D42 (2d OIr.1OM), per Learned Hand, J •• establ1sblng. hornbook law in the field of vicariOUS lIabWty. The result (application of the lex fori) might have been less doubtful (Goodrich 279) If it had remained limited to the international con1lict involved. Or compare Louis-Dreyfus v. Paterson S. S.. 43 F.2d 824 (2d Olr.1930), per Learned Band, J., an international confllcts case apparently primarily responsible for the Restatement rule as to "excuse of nonperformance" (Rest. § 358), which bas made' an empty shell 4{'r of the place o,f contracting rule In both international and Interstate con1llcts cases. Nussbaum 17420. For- contracts. see Auten v. Auten; 308 N.Y. 153. 124 N.E.2d 99 (1954). an International con1llcts case. For torts, see Morris, The Proper Law of a Tort. 64 Barv.L..Rev. 881 (1951). But ct. Ehrenzwelg, The Place of Acting in Intentional Multtstate Torts 36 lI1nn.L.R~ 1 (1951); Prosser, Interstate Pubiication. 51 Mtch.L.Rev. 959 (1953). See also 174 (4). . 21. Nussbaum 37ft. ~' See Walton v. Arabian American on Co., 233 F.2d 54l. (2d Oir. 1956), cere. deu. 3G2 U.S. 872, 7T S.Ot. 97 (1956), Intra notes 25ff.

IS. See e. g. In re James t Will. 2-18 N.Y. 1. 161 N.E. 201 (1028); Reese. The Status in this Country of Judgments Rendered Abroad, 50 CoLL.Rev. 788. 198 (1930). Con~rning exchange control, see Meyer, Recognition of Exchange Controls Ilfter the International lionetary Fund Agreement, 62 Yale r"J. 667 (10GB); infra § 48 note 17•. The most comprehensive work on this topic, Bjerner, Frilmmande Valutalag ocli IPR (1957) has an excellent EnglJsb S1JDlJD81')". See also Infra § 184 notes 6-lW 16. Of. Cheatham and Reese, Oholce of the Appllcable Law, 52 Col.L.Rev. 959,063(1952). Conceivably. common treatment of aliens and residents of sister states has contributed to the preservation of the few distinctions, for conlllcts purposes. between resJdents and nonresidents among American citizens. ct. Douglas v. New York, N. H. & B. R. Co., 219 U.S. 377. 49 S.Ot. ~5 (1929), holdIng such discriminations constitutional; Canadian Northern R. Co. v. Eggen. 252 U.S. 553, .j()·S.Ct. 402 (1020); Reese and Green, That Elusive· Word "Resldence", 6 Vand.L.Bev. M1 (1953). See a.llIo-t-13 notes 4ff.; 1 35 notes 411f.

on domicile (over nationality which prevails abroad as a basic element of choice of law), may have been indispensable in the law of domestic relations to take account of an ever increasing mobility from state to state}'" But it may well be that an international con· fiicts law, freed from this interstate back· ground, would tend toward other solutions.%S On the other hand, separate treatment of in· ,temational conflicts might solve the perenmal problem of whether contractual capacity should be governed by the .law of the place of contracting or by the law of the dome icile, in the latter's favor. In interstate con.. flicts the former has usually been given pret.. erence,29 since in such cases "resort to domicile is impracticable because of the uncertainties connected with domicile. It may appear, however, that the domicile of persons engaged in international trade is more stable than the domicile in the average case where interstate transactions are involved, and if that assumption is justified domicile may furnish a convenient standard for international transactions. In fact, it might be possible to regard the place in which the business is canied on, that is the business residence, as a substitute for domicile in determining capacity in this class of cases." 30 We may admire as "inspiring" the "spec" tacle of foreign countries being granted all the privileges of sister states." 31 But it has not been privileges alone that have been
28. 1 Rabel 161. The PoUsh law of 1026 distinguishes between international and interstate conftlcts In this respect. llakarov. Quellen des Internatlonalen Prtvatrecbts (1053), title "Poland." Bnt see R4!czei 145. As to the U. S. s. a, see infra § 106 note n29.

25. But compare WaltoD v. Arablan.Amertcan 011 00.,


RUpra note 22. at '545. relying on a dictum in American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co.. 213 U.S. 347, 355, 20 S.Ot. 5U, 512 (1009); lnfra § 127. Schlesinger, Research on the General PrInciples of Law Recognized by ClriUzed Nations, 51 A.m.J.lnt. L. i34, 748 (1957) would shift the burden of proof to the defendant ''wbere the facts alleged by the plaintiff are such that under generally recognized' principles of law they may be thought to give rise to a cause of action In any civilized country." See also Esser, Grunds\tz und Norm (1956) 321tr. 26•. 'Valton v. Arabian American 011 Co., 233 F.2d 54l. (2d Oir. 1956), cerf. den. aG2' U.S. 872, 77 S.Ot.
07 (10M). Infra. t 121.

Stumberg, Commerc:lal Paper and the ConJUct of Laws; 6 VancLL.Rev.489 (1933).



1 Rabel 109tr., 12Otf.; supra 1 1 note 4; 1Dfra. I

On the scope of the Rule of Valldation 8ee" infra ,·178. 30. Lorenzen. Uniformity between Latin America and the United States In the Rules of Private International Law Relating to Commercial Contracts, 15 TulL.Rev. 165, 170 (1941): accord Batiffol. Form and Capacity In International Contracts. The Conmct of Laws and International Contracts (1949) 108. . 111. See also Batiffol. Lea Con1l1ts de lois en matl(!re de contrats (1938) 825tl'. 31., Du Bois, supra note 6. at 380.




§ 6

·S) 6




'~granted" to foreign C01D1tries by our private 102); they -might have been ·willing to give international law. Thus, interstate require- effect to foreign ·status conceptions (§ 135). .ments of full faith and credit related ,to pe- or.to the procedural capacity of foreign heirs culiarly American jurisdictional standards of (§ 14); and they might have further extenddue process, have been applied in .order to .ed, rather than discredited, earner attempts deny recognition to the laws and even judg- at establishing an international minimum ments of foreign countries (§ 59). Such standard of choice of law.» Finally. interholdings can perhaps be jUstified on the national judicl8.1 assistance ,on a civil-law ground that it is "unreasonable that we . pattern:U might have long become the preshould give greater respect to judgments re- cursor of a much-needed interstate cooperacovered in a foreign country than to a .judg- tion which is now slowly groping for-recogment recovered in one of our sister states. U SI nition (§ 84). But the true issue seems to be whether conInterstate confticts rules, whether or not stitutional standards established by and for adopted under constitutional compulsion, are American coutts and conditioned oI,l.the his- largely dictated by the'need of curtailing any tory and functions of ~ericall concepts of forum shopping for the more advantageoUs jurisdiction, should be applied in judging the law that might be invited by the prevailing propriety of extranational procedures based ''transient rule" of personal jurisdiction (§ upon ancient and fair standards of compe- 30) . But this consideration has Uttle meantency and fair notice. In this connection tm-· ing in international con1licts' cases, and it familiarity with the ..~tigiousu proceed- . may often be. too much to count on Ameriings of foreign countries has proved particu- can courts applying interstate rules to interlarly harmful (pp. 180, 181). Similar con- national con1licts. This expectation may, in siderations apply to the indiscriminate gen- cases-involving such confticts~ have unduly eral denial of merger of causes of action in favored the lex fori,3G either under traditional extranational judgments. SUch denial could be avoided under an independent intemation- . 33. Borne Ins. Co. T. Dick, 281 U.S. 397, 60 S.Ct. SS8 (1930), which subjected to tile due proeess requireal standard linked to the enforceability of ment a Texas court's obliJmtion to refrain from applying Its own law to n Mexican contract, seems 1D judgments from the particular foreign coun-

:rules -relating to the choice or to the proof of law; or by such -ready tools as ren-=voi,. procedural characterization,a'f or pub'. ·1ic poliCY.- In some fields the practice con!cernJng international confiicts. less exacting :::than that developed for interstate-confticts. ,.~y have promoted an undesirable "provin, !: dalism" in interstate cases; while in other .;.: . j lle1ds a more liberal attitude in such cases - " should perhaps not be extended to international conflicts.39


'The Identification of international and intt;erstate ,confiicts rules in theory, and the •stress laid by the former upon the lex fori. may have stified the impact, so widely recognized in its ,American beginnings (§ 2), of general principles of-public, upon private, in1emational law.CO Thus, resistance to a greater exercise of the treaty. power in the ·conflicts field (§ 7) couldl'eth~hi:Pd if interstate con1licts laW"CQ1~1';i;~­ ()y exempted from this ~eL(·44ihii.wva. greater concession to, aiid,::;~i@.k. full restoration· of, a gener8l-coiifli~ ._

the federal eourts;41 CQuId. perhaps be achieved, in search of anew ,"federal field" (§ 8). by limiting this goal to· the law of international confiicts, witliin Justice Sutherland's famous dictum postul~ting a suprastate national law in matters Concerning in· . ternational relations (§ 8). . . Finally, separate treatment of international con1licts 'law seems ur-gently ·needed for the guidance of fOreign la'Wers to whom the Restatement, particularly·.since its translation into French,U has become the _principal source of American confiicts -law,.a3. notwithstanding its primary concern with the "legislative jurisdiction" of sister states (§ 4). Exclusion of international conBicts'law from the Restatement Second ~ would greatly contribute, I believe, to·a sounder. development of American confiicts law in .both fields.
41. . Klaxon Co.
T. Stentor Eleetric Mfg. Co., 818 U.s. 487, en S.Ot. 1020 (1941), purporting to eliminate. such la1\' in diverslt,. cases, hall been widely criticized. See e. g. Clark, C. J., in Collins T. American .Automobile Ins. Co. of St. Louis, 230 F..2d 416 (2d Clr. 1956); Cook lOS, 117; . 'Keeffe et ol., Weary Erie. 34 Com.L.Q. 494, GIf) (1949); Wolkln, Collfllct ~f Laws in the Federal Courts: The Erie Era. 9-l U.l'a.L.Re\,. 293, 298 (1940). As·to a pOssIble Inroad Into tills doctrine. see also Black 'and Douglas. JJ., dlssentin~ in Bank of Amerlcn National Trust & Sa\'lngs Ass'n \'. I"aruell. 352 1:.:5. 29, 7i S.Ct. lUI (lOOG); Byrd T. Blue lUd~ ICnrnl Electric Coopcrntl\'c, 35G U.S. 525, 78 S.Ct. so.1 (1008); Mal!ennu \'. Aetna Freight Lines. Inc., 800 'U.S. 278, 'i9 S.Ct. 1184 (1900) : Jaftex Corp. T. Randolph Mills, Inc., 28:! F.2d 50S (2d Cir. 1960); and In general Anno.. !!1 A.L.R.2t:l 247; infm § 8 note· 2: § 9 note 4; f 120 note 3. But see also Currie, Change of Venue and tbe Conllict of Laws: A Retraction, 27 U.OhLL.Re,.. 841, 351-3i)2 (1960).

try (§ 62).

An international conflicts law might very well have long succeeded, in this respect and in others, in developing standards more desirable than those resulting from inappropriate interstate conceptions. Thus, without the background of full faith and credit, American courts might long ago have decided to follow the example of New York (§ 73) in recognizing extranational divorces upon tests better adapted to international relations than the domicile test which serves the typical needs of interstate relations (§ § 74ft.); the courts might have developed a new test in applying the no-double-UabiUty exception from quasi-in-rem jurisdiction (p.

jeopnrdr In Tiel" of the apparent lack of respect given to this declfllon In the interstate case of WatflOn ,'. Emplo~en: Llablllty Assur. Corp•• 848 U.S. 66, 75 S.Ct. l(1U (10a-l,. Hut see Rest. Second, Tent. Draft No.3 (lD50) 20; supra § 4 note 29: infra IA 9, 10, 40(0). .


Infra t U6.


--,.: :--C:;-_'ll .

~. See e. g. Black Diamond S. -S:~~-~;.-·l[o~rt
Stewart &; Sons. 886 U.S. SSG, 09 S.Ct. 022 (1949). Leroux T. Brown, [1852] 12 C.B. 801, characterizing the statute of frauds 8S procednral, is still autllority 1D interstate conlllcts cases. Distinguishing this ease as one involving an international conllict might help in clarifying an increasingly complex interRtate problem requiring an independent solution. See infra 11'17.


34. Nussbaum 22.1ft'.: Jones, Internntional Assistance: Procedural Chaos and a Pl'OJrraJD tor Reform, 62 Yale L.J. 515 (If):-.al; Enns. Oral Depositions In Foreign Countries, 4 Fed.BarNews 157 (1sr.m; inira t 7 note 10. See also Smit, International AspectS of Federal Civil Procedure, 61 Colum.L.Be\'. 1031 (1961). 35. See Ehreuzweig-Fraglstas-'YlaJmopoulos, Amerlcan-Greek Private International Law (1957) 30, for an analysis in this respect of some of the bilateral studies, supra note 23. As to statutes of limitations, see supra note 13; as to probate proceed1ngs, Bopkins. The Extraterritorial Ejfect of Probate Decrees, 58 'Yole L.J. 221 (1944) i infra 160 i and in general Cheatham and Reese, Choice of the Applicable Law, 52 Col.L.Re\'. 959, 964 (1~). For a particularly persuasive instance of a discrepancy between law and dogma, caused by the lack of an 1DterDatlonru confilcts rule, see Ylanllopoulos, WWs Of Movables


f' r


42. Wlgor, Expose du Droit International Prl\,4!
Am~rlcaln (l94O).

See infra § 120.

t I

39. See e. g. Reasor-Ulll Corp. \'. Harrison, 220 Ark. 621, 526, 249 S.W.2d 994, 996 (10:;2), discarding the concept of local actions 1D interstate cases., but coneedJ.ng that "one may haTe some sympathy for this POsition in international disputes." Infra I 39.

Grubel T. Nassnuer, 210 N.Y. 149, 103 N.E. 1113 (1913). See intra II 46 note 4. 55 note 20,69 note,5.

Stevenson, The Relationship of Private International Law to Public International Law, 52 ColI.. BeT. G01 (1952); Katzenbach, Conflicts on an Unruly Horse, 65 'Iale L.J. 1087, 1128 (1956); and in gen_ eral Dickinson, The LaW' of Nations as Part of the NatiOnal Law of the United States, 101 U.Pa.L.Re\,. 26, 792 (1952-53) ; Jessup, Transnational Law U9:i6); supra I 4 note 82 i infra I 1 note 4-

See Goodrich, The American La",' lnstltute, Report for 25th Annual Meeting (1948) 7; Eder,' El estudlo del derecl10 Anglo-Amerlcano, Cuadernos de Derecho AngloamerJcano (1953) 33, 40 i Ehrenzwe.ig, El Restatement AmerJcano del Oonfllcto de Den... . chos: Blstoria de un Fracaso,.id. 3;, 38'(1954); Id., Bol Inst. Der. Comp. de Mex, 268 (1952) j Jd., Zum Bandwerkszeug des amerJkanlschen'internationnlen PrlTatrechts, 'i OesterreJchlsche .zeitscbrlft fUr iSttentllches Recht 521 (1956); ld., American Private Internatlonal Law and the "Bestatement," 2S Nord. Tldsskr. Int. n. 229 (1958). 44. Concerning the Reporter's favorable view on tbJB point, see EhrenzweJg, supra ilote 6. at '111.


\ ....





§ 7

§ 7




§ '7. Over-zealous adherence to unitarian or pluralistic ideologies may explain the ne. gation at various times by various courts and writers of the scop~, or even existence, of one or the other of the sources of contlicts law. Thus, a New York Surrogate once called it an "absurd attempt" for any state to try to make rules of "private international law".1 On the other hand, attempts have been frequent, though so far unsuccessful, to deprive of validity international treaties purporting to modify state rules of conflict of laws.s Notwithstanding stich extreme attitudes, in.. ternational law (treaties, executive agree. ments and customary law), federal law (Constitution, treaties, ~ statutes, common law) and the laws of the several states (constitutions, inteI'State compacts, statutes, common law) have emerged as the generally recog.. nized sources of the law of conflicts, as they have of any other branch of the law. 3 The relative significance of these sources has varied with the changing pattern of the in.. ternational order and of the federal system.

It may be embodied in treaties and executive
agreements, or it may be based on custom. The most frequent types of United States treaties atfecting the confiict of laws (S. are consular conventions, treaties of friendship, commerce and navigation, arbitration agree.. ments (§ 52), and" other bilateral treaties«
governments, and "supranational" roles directly at-· tectlng citizens of the several states, see lIarsb, Su·· prnnational PlanninJr Authorities and Private Law. 4 Am.J.Comp.L. 180 (1055). Renewed attempts at achieving n fnslon of public and "private" international law (§ 4 note 32) lU'e worth noting. See Jessup. Transnational f.Q\v (1056); Erler. Gruudprobleme des Internationalen Wlrtschattsreehts (1956); sl1pm § 1 note 1. See also 1 Hyde, International Law (1922. rev. 1(45) llJf.: Beckett. Wllat is Private International T.ll\v?, 7 Brit.Y.B.lnt.L. 73 (1926): BUhler. Der vijlkerrechtliche Gehalt des IPR, Festschrift lIartin Wolff (1002) 177; Turlington, The Control of Foreign Relations under the Constltu· tlons of the American Republics. Academia Interamericana de Derecllo Comparadc. e Internae1onaJ. Cursos lIonognlJicos [1D"'.J4) 103.

such as those for the avoidance of double taxation which are now multiplying quickly on the model of.. the United States..United Kingdom conventions of 1945.T Numerous bilateral agreements for atomic energy c0operation have recently been concluded and ratified.s But, with few exceptions,s this COlDltrY has refused to adhere to the many existing multilateral confiicts conventions or to c0operate in the negotiating and drafting of new ones.t° Nine conventions have been concluded in the Hague (1893, 1894, 1900, 1904, 1925, 1928, 1951, 1956, 1960), and many (concerning marriage, divorce, separation, guardianship, effects of marriage, interdiction of incompetent persons and civil proce. dure, in this order)' have been adopted in a
7. Ehrenzweig and Koclt, Income Tax Trenties of the United States (1050). See e. g. American Trost Co. v. Smyth. 247 F.2d 149 (9th Cir. 1D5i); Sct\Ddl· na\"lnn Airlines System, Inc., v. County. of Los Anga. les. :16 Ca1.2d 1. 14 OnJ.Rptr. 25. 41-44 (1001): Illld Id. at 46 (Traynor, J., dissenting). See generally

L INTERNATIONAL LAW International law may be a source of both international and inteIState conflicts law.4

See in general Oliver. Hlstorleol Development ot' International f.a\v: Contemporary Problems ot Trenty Law, 88 Ree. (lD55) 421; Hynning. Treaty Law for the Private Practitioner, 23 U.ChLL.ReY. 37 (1055); Jltta. The Development of PrIvate International Law through Treaties, 29 Yale L..T. 491 flD20); Tucker. The Conflict of Laws, 3 Stanf.L.Rev. !l88. 410 (1051): IlDd particularly Bayttch, Conflict Law In UnIted States Treaties (1005). See also :\(akarov. Die Verelnheitllchung des IntemationaleDPrlvatreehts durch Staatsvertriige, Frledenswart& 340 (1053): DrobnlJr, ConJIlet of Laws in Recent Eost·European Treaties, is Am.J.Comp.L. 48T (1956).

BUhler, Internatlonales Steuerrecht (ISm) und IPR

substantial number of_countries. Of great importance is the Geneva Convention (1930, 1931) regarding bills of exchange and checks, adopted by at least twenty-one European countries.lOb Two Geneva Conventions (1923, 1927), concerning arbitration clauses and the execution of foreign arbitration awards, have been widely adopted, even outside Europe.u The two Montevideo Conventions (1889 and 1940) are extensive codifications of conflicts law, and have been adhered to by Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay, peru and Uruguay. The Codigo Bustamante of 1928 has been ratified by all Central American states and the \VestIndies, as well as by Bo.. livia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela. More recently the Scandinavian and Benelux countries have entered into agreements on the unification of confficts law; 12 and the Pan American Union continues to seek a common basis for Interamerica.n codi.. fication. 13 That a treaty, if self-executing, will over.. ride any domestic law l' is established as to.
lOa. For a. blbllography. see Hoogstraten, 5 Ned. Tijdscl1r. Int. R. 57. i2ff. (1958). See also e. g. Graveson, Tbe ~Intb Hague Conference of PrIvate International Law. 10 Int. &: Comp.L.Q. 18 (1961). lOb. See 5 Hudson. International Legislation (1038) 516-548. ~i58. 889-013. 915-924. See also Hudson and Fellner. Tbe International Unification of Laws Concerning BiUs of ExcbaDge, 44 Harv.L.Rev. 333 (1931): Hudson and Fellner, The International Uni· fleatiou of Laws Concerning Checks, 44 Harv.L.Bev.


Vogel. International BUateraI Agreements for C0operation in Atomic Energy, 25 Geo.Wnsh.L.Rev.492 (1957); Freeman. Development of International Co. operation in the Peaceful Use of AtomiC Energy, iH Am.J.lnt.L. 383 (1960).

9. See Hynning, supra note 5, at 4Ofr.
10. See Nussbaum 48, 64; Nadeimann, Tbe United

Inre New York Life Ins. &: Tnlst Co.• 130 N.Y.S. 605. n3 (Surr.1913). sae infra. § 10.

6. Ct. Clark v. Allen. 331 U.S. U03, 61 S.Ct. 1431 (1947): Kolovrat v. Oregon, :166 U.S. 187, 81 S.Ct.
D22 (1001): and for general dlseussions particularly Nussbaum 46; Nussbaum. Amerlc:an-Swfss PrIvate International Law, BUateral Studies in PrivateInternational Law (1958) 9; Delaume. Amerlcan·French Private International Law. ill. (1953) 1; Ebrenzwelg·Fraglstns.Yiannapoul08, American.. Greek Private International La\V, Jd. (1957) 12. 29.. 51; Wilson, A Decade of New Commercial Treaties. 50 Am.J.lntL. 927 (1056); Hynnlng. supra Dote S. at 71ff.: Walker, lladem Treaties ot Friendship. Commerce nnd Navigation, 42 lfinn.L.Rev. ~ fl9CS8). As to workmen's compensation, see supra f 6 note "ll; infra. § 228. Generally. see Wilson. United States Commercial Treaties and International Law (1960) with a Table listing the treaties,. id. at 831-334. See also Lepaulle, Rc!lIex1ons sur la couventlon d'c!tablls&ement franco.BID6r1caIne du" 2S Dovembre 1959. [1961] Rev. Orit, 291: Intra I 24S Dote 38.

2. On the controversy about the proposed constltu· tiona.! wnendment to this eft'ect. see e. g. N.Y.C.B.A.. Report on' the 1007 "Bricker Amendment." 12 Ree. ord 320 (lD57); Bricker and Webb. Treaty Law v. Domestic Constitutional Law, 29 N.D. Lawyer 529 (1954); Dean, Amending the Treaty ,Power, 6 Stan. L.Rev. 589, 603· (lD54); Sutherland. Restricting the Treaty. Power, 65 Harv.L-Rev. 1305 (1952): Perl. man. Oa Amending the Treaty Power, U2 CoLL.Rev. 825 (1052): MeLaughllli. The Scope of the Treaty Power In the United States, 42 lIInn.L.Rev. 709, 763 (1958). Cheatham. Sources of Rules for Con1Uet ot Laws. 89 U. Pa.L.Rev.480 (1941). 4. On the desirability ot a distinction between Inter~ national rules ~ntla1ly operating oo1y between

States and the Hague Conferences on PrIvate Inter· national Law, 1 Am.J.Comp.L. 268 (1952); id., Ig· 668 (1932). DOred State Interests etc., 102 U. of Pa.L.Rev. 232 II. Nussbaum, Treaties on Commercial Arbitration(19M); ld.. Comment. I) Am.J.Comp.L. 611 (1056). It.. Test of International Private--Law Legislation, :i6 Possibly. constitutional objections to federnl and Harv.L.Rev. 219 (11)42). On the New York Conven· executive interference with state rights are the prl· tlon of JUDe 10. 1058. see Contini, International mary cause for this hesitation.. Cf. the line of dicta Commercial Arbitration,. 8 AnLJ .Comp.L. 283 (lOGO). from In re D'Adamo's Estate, 212 N.Y. 214. 106 N.E. 12. See 1 Rabel 37; lfeijers. The Benelux Conven· 81, S5 (1914); to Amaya v. Stanollnd 011 5: Gas Co., tlon on Private International Law, 2 Am.J.Comp.L. 1M F.2d 554 (5th Cir. 1946), celt. den. 331 U.S. 808, 1 (1953); Philip, The Scandinavian Conventions on 67 S.Ct. 1191, rehearing den. 331 U.S. 861, 67 S.Ct. Private International Law, 96 Rec. 245-343 (1059): 1530 (1946); and saving clauses such as Art. 200c Note. 1 Int. 5: Comp.L.Q. (4th Ser. 1932) 428of the treaty of Versallles. or that contained fa the Peace Treaty with Italy of 1947 (01 Stat. 1648. An· 13. Pan American Union, Inte~American Judlclal nex XVI, part D.2). On the hesitant American atCommittee, Comparatlve Study of the Bustamante titude to inter.AmeriC8n e1forts for treaty codUlca· Code, the Montevideo Treatles. and the Restate-tlou, see Lorenzen, ~e Pan American Code of PrIment of the Law of Con1llc:t of Laws (1954). \"ate International Law, 4 Tul.L.Rev. 499. 519 (1930) ; Kuhn, Opinlon of the- Inte~Amerlcan Judicial Com· l<t Cf: SantovlnceDZO v. Egan. 284 U.S. 30, 52 S.Ct mission on Revision of the Buatamente Code, 40 81 (1931), declaring the disposition of property of Am.J.Int.L. 317 (1952). But see also Fenwick. The allens to be wltbln the treaty·maklng power of the Charter ot the OrganIZation of American" States as Ualted States to which "anr conJIletlng law of the the "Law of the Landt" 41 Am.J.Int.L. 281 (1953).



-§ 7



questions "which in the ordinary intercourse of nations have usually been subject to negotiations and treaty, U 1St e., those questions "that properly pertain to our foreign relations." 16 If "clearly necessary to e1fectuate the national policy," 11 these agreementswiIl also affect interstate conflicts law. A treaty is, in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, "to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself, without the aid of .any legislative provision But when the terms of the stipulation import a contract .•• the legislature must execute the contract, before it can become a rule for the courL" 18 Lacking such execution, the preamble and article 1 of the charter of the United Nations have been held not to override a state alien land law.lB
State most yield." As to the "Method for United Rtates to Have State Statute Declared Void -under Pre-ExJBting Treaty," see Note. 42 Com.L.Q. 418 (1007). For the intemntlonnl aspects of the problem. see Van der Zanden. Verdrng gaat voor wet, ook In natlonale recbstbetrekkingen (1002) (with an EngURh summary); Ehrlich, Interpretacjn Trald:at~\\' (lfl57) (with an En~llflh .mmmn1'3'); lliAhop, International Law (19:;3) 2: Dnyltcb, op. cit. suprn note a, at Sir. See also McLaughlln. snprn note 2. at 148: Dial. 49 AJD.J.lnt.L. 847 (10ri5): Evans. Self-executing TreatleJ; in the United States of Amerlcn. 30 Br.'Ih.Int.L. 178 (1r03): Note. 44 Com. L.Q. IrIS (1958). See also infra § 184 note S. 15. Geofro,. v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 200, 10 S.Ct. 295, 200 (1890). 16. Snntol"incenzo ". Egon. 284 U.B. 80. 40. 52 S.Ct. 81, 84 0931 l. 17. United States v. Pink, 315 U.S~ 203, 230, 62 S.Ct. 002. OOU (1942). 18. Foster •. Nellj;()D, 2 Pet. (27 U.S.) 253, 314 (1829), cIted with appro"al in United Statef; v. Uaullcher. 119 U.S. 407. 41S, 7 S.Ct. 234, 240 (1886); Valentine T. United States ex rel. Neidecker, 290 U.S. 5. 10. 57 S.Ct. 100, 163 (1936). Cf. Clark v. Allen, 831 U.S. 503, G7 S.Ct. 1481 (19-17). See in general I; Hackworth, Digest of International Law (1943) 17'i; nIesenfeld. Tbe Power of ConJn"eSs and the President ill International Relations: Three Supreme Court DecIsiOns, 25 CaUf.L.Re•. 643, 650 (1937); Comment, 48 Mich.L.Re\"'. 852 (1950). 19. Fujl1 v. Callfomia, 88 Cal.2d 718, 242 P.2d 617 (1952). See also Vanity Fatr Mills v. T. Eaton Co., 2M F.2d 638 (1956), cert den. 352 U.S. 871, 77 S.Ct. 00 (1956) [COnvention for the Protection of Industrial Property with Canada (53 SUlt. 1748) not selfexecuting); Fairman, Finis to FuJU, 4G Am.J.lnt.L. 682 (1952). On the Warsaw ConveDtloD, see iDfl'a I 207 note 19, I 222 note 20.

Moreover, the-Supreme Court "bas regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacY of the Constitution over a treaty;" to and even ,can Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with • a treaty, [so] that when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renderS.. the treaty nuU."!1 ~ally, state courts will often be inclined to apply a restrictive interpretation to treaties with respect -to rights of succession considered peculiarly subject to local policy.!! Executive agreements which the President
has the power to conclude, have been held to have the same effect as treaties with regard

to the law of conflict ot'laws.t3 Recent trends in the decisions -~fthe Supreme. Court concerning the President's power in relation to

may, however, have reduced the .of .biB a~thority in this respect.u to IIAmerican MtionaIit2/' in treaties t6 have caused difficult probof . interpretation abroad." Foreign yeftnitions are likely to refer to the" c'whole of the United States which includes its "~.conflicts rules and may in tum refer to the ~':"~!Jaw of the domicile. The difficulty with this . -"formula would be its pretense to general ap.; .. .JPUcabllity-so common in current ,clogical" ~ '.. -.approaches. It may very well be that the ~oreign law invoking the law of American -nationality would prefer application of a na-1:ional American common law, however pre"G!iously ascertained, to a choice among the .!Several state laws, based on an equally pre'carious concept of domicile. t ';
'24. Cf. United Sta~ v. Guy W. Capps, Inc.• 204 F. · 2d G55 '(4t11 Cir. 1953). aff'd on other grounds S48 · U.s. !!96, 1G s.Ct. S20 (1955), declaring unenforce.able a contract concluded In accordance wJtll an · ~ecutive aJm!Cment between the United States and '<lanada, and reJyln~ in part on 1:ounJnltOwn Shect _.4 ,Tube Co. T. ,Sa\vyer. 343 U.S. 1;79, ~ S.Ct 8G3 . (1952). See in Iteneral )lcClure. Internatlollnl Executive Atrreements (l9n); McDougal and Lans. Treaties and Congressional-Executive or IJresldelltial Agreements etc.. 54 Tale 1..l. 181 (1945): Dorward. 'l'reaties and Executive Agreements etc., 54 Yale · L.J. 616 (194:»; Hill. Treaty Making Power of the United States. a Dlbn~nphlcal Guide. 9 N.T.C.D.A. · Record 72 (1004); Sutherland. Comment. (IT Han.L. Be•• 281 (lU:;3). ConstJtutionnl and statutory lim· itatlons upon the treaty power are a fortiori appU"cable to executh'e ngreements. Held T. Co\'ert, 354 U.S. I, 1i. n. 33. 77 s.Ct. l222 fl9;;;). See also W11· son •. Girard, 8a-l U.s. 52-1, 7j S.Ct. 1409 (19ij7); McLaughlin, supra note 2, at 764: Aufricbt. Presl· dential Power to Ilegulnte Commerce and LendLease Transnctlons. {l944] J. of 1)01. 1;7; nnd in general Dept. of State, Treaties in Force: A List of Treaties and otller Intemntional AgM!1mlents of the · United States in Force on Jnnuary 1, 19G1 (1001). "Z. But see e. g. the trenties with Cbina (1946, Art. VIII). Italy (1948, Art VII), Uruguay (1951, Art. VII). and Israel (1951. Art. IX), referring to the law of the domic1lial'r state of the Union. See in general Bayltcb, Con1lict Law in United StateS Treaties (lo;:m) 15f. .26. For the general problem see e. g. Kegel, pie · Anwendung des Recbts ausU1.ndiscber Staaten JIllt 1'i1umllcher Rechtspaltung, Karl Arnold Festschtift (1955) 01; Datlfi'ol GSf.; 1 RAbel 144; RbelnsWin, lur.Comp. DIP 141 (1937). "'%1. Reese and Green, Tbat Elusive Word "neslce,tt 6 Vand.L.ReT. 561 (19:;3). See ~ Bout-

A similar problem arises where reference is made to the "law of the 'flag" in fields not governed by a national law. Thus:a mar-' riage concluded on the high seas is saia to be valid "if the law of the" flag is. complied with."!8 Since there is no national marriage law in the United States;. and tbeseveral states have no "law of the flag," a further reference is needed. The, New York ·court. rejecting the law of the: ship's registrY,lD referred to "the laws of the state where the owner resides," 30 in contrast to the. California court which preferred the law of the parties' domicile.31 Considerable doubt seems to exist as to rights conferred by consul~ and -commercial treaties upon foreign const4s to demand their appointment as administrators· in .probate' proceedings involving nationals of their countries. ·A majority of jurisdictions seems to consider such provisions as "not so: mandatory as to require that state laws regarding the administration of estates should be'superseded." 3: Additional difficulties have arisen with regard to nationals of communist countries as to whom treaty provisions ~ave occasionally been held inapplicable as being· merely 'llrocedural".33 Finally, an 4meriwich, necent Developments of the Princlple of Dom' icile tn English Law. 87 Ree. (1900) 121. For dec'SiOllS i8'':Olving an "American "domicile, to sec Trot.. tiel' ,'. Rajotte. [1940] 1 D.L.n. 433: Gattr , .. AU't Gen., {i9S1] 2 Times L.lt. 599 (lD51,. 28. Rest. § 12i. See infra § 139 note S. 29. 'WhRTton. Confiict of Laws flSi2) § 800. SOli also Blckman ,'. Tnylor. 7u F.S\lpp. 528 (E.D.lid. lWi) ("domicile or the "essel" in au Interstat(> con· filet). SO. Fisber v. Fisher. 250 N.Y. S13. lGG .N.E. 461' (1929). Sec Anno., 61 A.L.n. 1528. Si. Norman v. Norman, 121 Cal. 620, 64 P. '143 (1898, S2. Simoni v. D'Ippolito, 8 N.J. 271. 277, 84 A.2<1 701. 111 (19;)1). cert. den. 343 U.S. 92S, 72 S.Ct. "in. (1002); and in general Anno., 100 A.L.R. 152j. 15.1: See also Lely T. Kal1noglou, 76 F.2d 988 (D.C.CiT 193a), cert den. 295 U.S. 7G5, 55 S.Ct. 9~ (193:);. rlying on state court decisions to the same effef See nlso infra notes 8511. 33. In re Siegler'S Will. 284 App.Dl •• 486, 132 N.1. 2d 892 (19M) (payment into court for benefit legatees unW such time as reasonable assur~


20. Reld v. Covert. 854 U.S. 1,17, 77 S.Ct. l222, 1230 (193'i). cltlng United States v. Minnesota, 270 U.S. 181, 207, 40 aCt. 29S, 800 0926); Bolden T. Joy. 17 . Wall. (84 U.s.) 211. 242 (1872); Tbe Cberokee Tobacco. 11 Wall. (78 U.S.) G10, 620 (1870): Doe on demo Clark T. Braden. 10 How. (57 U.S.) 035. 05i (1SU31. Or. Aufricbt. SupeJ'Seflsloll of Treaties In International La,,-. 3i Corn.L.Q_ Gr.ri (1052); Green, The Treaty MukJDg Power alld tbe Extraterritorial Effect of the Constitution. 42 Mlnn.L.BeT. 82:i (1008); Bishop. Unconstitutional Treaties, 42 Mbm. L.Re\"'. 773 (1008).

21. Reid T. CoTert. 354 U.S. 1. 18, 77 S.Ct. 1222, 1231 (lfl;)i). citing Whitney Y. Rohertson, 124 U.S. 100, ]04, S S.Ct. 4rlG. oJ:iS (1~): Hend Money Cases, 112 U.S. 5SO (ISS-it; not Iller •. Dominguez, 180 U.S. 238, 0 S.Ct. 525 (1881l): Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.s. 581. 9 S.Ct. G23 (1SS:;). See also Wilson •. Girard,3a4 U.S. 524. 17 S.Ct. 1409 (1957); Comment, 71 Ban·.L.Re\". 712 (1058). On the potentially resulting responsibility of the United States in International law. see Byde, International Law (241 ed. 1943) 1403-1465. 22. Clark T. Allen. 331 U.S. 503, 517, 67 S.Ct. 1481, 1489 (1947) (personalty under the German treaty); In re Mnzurowski. 331 Mass. 83. 3i, 110 N.E.2d 854, 857 (1954) (llmltatlon of Polish treaty by local rigbts "proTldlng for the orderly settlement and dlstrlbutlOll of the estates" of local domlclliaries). But see also Justice Fjeld's opinion In Geofroy v. Riggs, 138 U.S. 258, 267, 10 S.Ct. 200, 297 (1890). 23. United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203, 62 S.Ot. 002 (1942). See Comment, 4S ColumLRev. 891 (1948). See also Byrd, Treaties and Executive Agreements in tbe United States (1960).







§ 7

§ S



can court's treaty obligation, in case of an alien's death, to inform the consul of his country, has found varying interpretation.H Following common law heritage,35 American courts have always treated international customary rules as part of the common law of each jurisdiction.36 Such rules have been applied, in the field of :Jurisdiction, to such questions as whether a foreign sovereign may be sued and whether its property may be seized; 3T whether, in the absence of treaty, a consul may represent his nationals; 38 and whether a transient diplomat is entitled to immunity; 39 or in determining the scope of "United· States jurisdiction" (to be dealt with below, § 25). Whether or not a federal law
he J:ivl"n that they would receive It). See also In re Drnier's. Estnte. 303 N.Y. 148. 111 N.E.:!d. 4201 (1053); Ilnd In general Heyman. The ~onresident Alien's IUght to Succession uncll"r the "Iron Curtnin Rule." 52 ::-i.W.U.L.Rev. 221 ·nOOn: Infra § 248 note -10. See Illsa Berman. Soviet lIeirs in 4mericnn Courts. 62 Colwn.L.Rev. !!:i1 (1062).
34. Compare Papadakl v. State Compensation ComIOb.sioner,111 W.Va. 1'5, 160 S.E. 22·1 (1031) (hohling tor Greek plnintlff). with State ex reI. Papadopoulos v. Industrial Commission. 130 Oblo St. ii. 81, 106 ~.E. iSO. iSl (l03G) ("alienage does not impair one's rights nor does it estnbUsh superior rigbts").

is applicable to these and similar problems is often doubtful in the absence of statute.40


§ 8. Federal law, within the scope assigned to it by the Constitution and by congressionallegislation, may affect in two ways the conflicts law applied by federal and state courts: in the first place as a "national law" 1 directly governing certain conflicts relations within fields subject to congressional control; 2 and in the second place through the constitutional impact upon state conflicts rules which are otherwise subject to the residual law-making power of the states.


International confticts. Aside from selfexecuting treaty law (§ 7), the Foreign· Commerce and Admiralty Clauses of the Constitution as well as "inherent powers" of the government 3 may be invoked in the creation by both legislatures and courts of a national law in international conflicts cases. The
40. See e. Go 22 U.S.C.A. § 252 (diplomatic Immunity) • :!2 U.S.O.A. §§ 2881T. (Immunities of oOicers of inte": national organizations); and in general DIckinson. supra note 36. I. Cheatham, Federal Control of Conflict of Laws; 6 Vnnd.L.Rev. 581 (1953), Sel.Read. 255: Cheatham, A Federnl ~atlon and Contllct of Laws, 2:! RocJcy lIt.L.Rev. 109 (1050).
2. Prior to Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric lItg. Co•• 313 U.S. 481. 61. S.Ct. 1020 (1941) (§ 6 note 41), a national law had also been developed by the federal courts In dIversity cases. See In general Hart and Wechsler. The Federal Courts and the Federal SYStem (1053) 6101f.: Hart, The Relations between State and Federal Law, 50! COI.L.Rev. 489. 507 (10M) ; Mlsbkln, Tbe Varlousness of "Federal Law": Competence and Discretion in the ChoIce of National and State Rules of Decision. 105 U.Pa.L. Rev. 791 (1051): Hill. The Erie Doctrine and the Constitution, 53 Nw.U.L.Rev. 427. 541, 543-609 (1958) ; OoGdman, Eighteenth Century Contllct ot Laws: CrItique of an Erie and Klaxon Rationale, 5 Am.J.Leg.HIst. 326 (1961). 3. United States v. Curtiss· Wrigbt, 209 U.s. 304•. 315, 316,51 S.Ot. 216,218.219 (1936). See also National - Oity Bank of New York v. Republic of China. 348: U.S. 356, 75 S.Ct. 423 (1956) (foreign ban.king).

35. Respublicn v. De Longchamps, 1 Dflll. (Pa.) 111 114 ( 1 1 8 4 ) . · •

36. The Paquete Rabana. I'm U.S. 671. iOO.20 S.Ct. :!DO (1000); Skirlotes v. Florida, 313 U.S. 60. i2, 61 S.Ct. 024. 027 (10011). See Cheatham. Sources of Rules fOr Conflict of L4\VS, 80 U.Pa.L.Rev. 430 (1041). Sel. Read. (1056) 134; Dickinson, The I.aw of ~atlons as Part of the National Law or the United States. 101 U.Pa.L.Rev. 26. 'iD'l (1052, 10Ga): Wrlgbt, Treaties as Law in ~ational Courts with Especial Reference to the United States. 32 Ind.L.J.
1 (lD56):

recognition of a national common law within this scope is usually based on Justice Sutherland's dictum in UJlited States v. Belmont 4 that "in respect of our foreign relations generally, state lines disappear [so that] . . as to such purposes the State of New York does not exist." There is much doubt, however, concerning the authoritative character of decisions of the United States Supreme Court in this field. Thus, e. g., state courts have declared themselves free to disregard the Court's reciprocity theory concerning the recognition of foreign judgments,~ as being in conflict with their own "policy and law".6 On the other hand, there is one field in which there is no doubt as to the existence of a national law bearing upon intemational conflicts, namely the law of admiralty, that "seasoned body of maritime law developed by the experience of American courts long accustomed to dealing with admiralty problems in reconciling our own with for .. eign interests and in accommodating the reach of our own laws to those of other mari~~ time nations."" And finally the Federal Constitution, by limiting the scope of both stat.. utory and common law rules of the several states, may yet produce a national law of international confiicts.· These limitations will be dealt with more fully in.the next section.8
4. 5.

Interstate conflicts (''Federal Field"). Congressional legislation has, in many fields, largely eliminated earlier con1Hcts between the laws of the several states. There remains, however, the question whether, and if so how far, a national common law should be permitted to establish either an independent national substantive rule 9 or a mandatory rule of choice of law.10 "Federal fields" have presented, or may yet present, problems of this kind concerning the legislation governing bankruptcy,11 interstate telegraph com.. panies. U1 the issuance of commercial paper by the U. S. Government,13 "government-soldier" U and "labor management" U relations. a carner's power to limit its liability,16 inter.. state free railroad passes,IT contracts with agencies of the United States,18 the liability of railroads to their employees,1I national
P.2d 3D (1955) (concerning allen Innd laws). As to Home Ins. Co. v. Dick. 281 U.S. 301. 50 S.Ct. 338 (1030), see supra § 4 note ~, I 6 note 33; infra § 9 note 18. § 40 note 1.

Western Union Telegrapb Co. v. Bocgll. 251 U.S. . 315. 40 S.Ct. 161 (1020). Western Union Telegrapb Co. v. Brown. 234 U.S.


5-12. M S.Ct. 000 (1014). See also De Sylva v. Ballentine. 351 U.S. 570. 580. i8 S.Ct. 914. !l8O (1956). implying 11 federal choice of the law determining legnl relationsbips under the Copyridlt A.ct; and in genernl lllsbkin, supra note:? at 808.

See Note. 66 IIarv.L.nev. 1013 (1053).

12. Supra notes O. 10.

United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324. 331, 57 S.

ct. 758. 'i61 (1037).
HUton v. Guyot, 1'59 U.S. 16 S.Ct. 130 (1895). Intra §-!6. 8. Cowans v. Ticonderoga Pulp &: Paper Co.• 219 App. Dlv. 120, !l9 N.Y.S. 284 (1D2T). Infra I 46 note 13. 1. Lauritzen v. Larsen. 345 U.s. m 511, 13 S.Ct. 021. 025 (1953), See also e. g. Jansson v. Swedlsb American Line, 185 F.2d 212 (Ist Clr. 1950): and In general Gilmore and Black, Admiralty (1951) 46f.. 112ft'.• 386tr., 6341r., 736ft'.; CoDUDeDt, 53 lIlcb.L.Rev. 100 (1054). For a mucb noted. e%panslon of· federal law into a related. area. see Greenberg.· v. Panama Transp. Co., 185 F.Supp. 320 (D.O.Mass.l960), Wyzanski, J .• rev'd on other ground 290 F.2d 125 (1st Olr. 1061). cert. den. 368 U.S. 891, 82- S.Ot. 143" (1961). See Note, 61 Colum.L.Rev. 281 (1961).
8. Of. Fujll v. State; 38 0aL2d 718. 242 P.2d 611


37. The Schooner Exchange v. lteFaddon, 1 Cranch 116 (U.S.1812). See In genernl Harvard Research In International Law. Competence ot Courts in Regard to Foreign States. 26 Am.J.Int.L.Supp. 451 (1932)' Allen, PositiOn of Foreign States before Natlonai Courts (1933); infra I 31.

. 38. Estate of Zalewski. 292 N.Y. 332. 339, 340, 55 N.E. 2d l.84, 181. 188 (1044); In re Bedo's Estate. 201 lIlse. 35, 136 N.Y.s.2d 0101 (Sorr.l955); Almo•• 157 A-LA 08; supra nt notes 32f1'. 39. Bergman v. De Sleyes, 110 F .2d· 360 (2d Cir.• 1048) (New York). See also Carrera v. Carrera, 114 F.2d 496- (D.C.Clr. 1949) (Ecuadorean cook of Czechoslovakian ambassador).

(1D52); Namba v. McCourt. 185 Or. 510.. 204 P;2d .,560 (1949); State v. Oakland. 129 Mont. 341, 281

Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States. 318 U.S. 363. 63 S.Ct. 513 (1043): Bank of America v. Par· neU, 352 U.S. 20. ii S.Ct. 110 (11)-;)6); llishkin. suo pra note 2. nt 52-Uf.; ~otes. 45 Callt.L.Rev. 212 (1957); 53 Col.L.Rev. 991 (1003). 14. United States v. Standard OU Co. of Oallfornia. 332 U.S. 301, 61 S.Ct. 1604 (1047). IS. Textile Workers Union v. LIncoln lUlls, 3lS3 U.S. 448. 71 S.Ot. 023 (1951). I&. Chicago & ~orth Western Ry. Co. v. Davenport, 205 F.2d 589 (5th Ok. 1953), cert. den, 346 U.S. 930, 74 S.Ct. 320 (1954). 17. Francis v. Southern PacUlc 00., 333 U.s. 44iS, 68 S.Ct. 611 (1948). 18. Seabrook Farms Co. v. Commodity Ored1t Corp., 206 F.2d 03 (3d Clr. 1953). 19. Brown v. Western Ballway of Alabama, 338 U.S. 294. 70 S.Ct. 105. (1949); Dice v. AkrOn, Canton & Youngstown R. Co•• 342 U.S. 359, '72 S.Ot. 312 (1952) ; Ericksen v. Southern. PacUlc Co., 30 CaL2d 314. 246



§ 9


banks,1O or national service life msurance.21 Particularly in the application of federal tax law it bas proved troublesome to ascertain
how far a national common law may be permitted to encroach upon the interpretation of legal concepts otherwise subject to the law of the several states, as to problems both domestic and interstate.Q


b. CoNSTITUTIONAL lMPAcr 'UPON STATE LAw § 9. Jurisdiction aDd judgments. The interstate recognition of judgments is governed by Art. IV, § 1 of the Constitution and the implementing act of 1790 as amended, which provide that the "records and judicial proceedings" of sister states shall be given "full faith and credit," i e., '''the same fUll faith and credit . . . as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State . from which they are taken." Whether or not the word "records" in this phrase refers to judicial precedents,l the recognition of judgments is certainly governed by the provision concerning "judici~ proceedings." While it

may have been the original intention thus "to provide for the e.ucuticm of judgments in other·states," I American courts have always considered such judgments as "merely a species of private obligation" upon which a new suit must be brought.3 Problems arising with respect to this recognition will be dealt with in the Second Chapter of this part (§ § 47ff.), while the impact of the Constitution on the law of local jurisdiction will be discussed in the First Chapter (§§ 27ff., 40).

~tionallaw of conflict of laws would be high- ing the Constitution as a mere supplementary
. desirable and that in course of time it F...nght beCOme a necessity. Continued urging this direction may yet induce Congress and _e courts to achieve this result by overrul':/dng the Klaxon case and by estab1islling, be.~".~ond the pr~K1axon doctrine, federal rules . ~ :dOf choice of law under the Constitution which . '~:~.: !WOuld override not only the decisional but ':::: ~ the statutory laws of the several states. :::-: , art I submit that this result cannot be achiev""! •. ....:; . ..ei, and should not be sought, by implying -.=:. ~eral rules of choice of law in the guise of .decisions as to due process and "full faith and .credit to public acts." G History would seem :to bear out this proposition.

The claim has been made repeatedly that a

Older treatises appeared justified in treat-



.Choice of Jaw. For nearly 150 years no need had apparently been felt for the establishment of constitutional choice of law rules under either the Due Process or Full Faith and Credit Clause. This was probably at least partly due to the practice prevailing in the federal courts through these 150 years, unger which these courts had the power to announce national conflicts rules likely to be accepted by the state courts. Not until after the abolition of this power of the federal courts by.the decision in IOaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co.,· did the Supreme Court begin to look seriously for· a way of creating federal conflicts law by means other than P.2d 642 (1052). cert. den. 344 U.S. S9i, 73 S.Ct. 277 (1fr'a2); Scarborough '\". Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., those now precluded. And it was not until 202 F.2d 84 (4tb Clr. 19:;3): Allison ,'. Chlca~o then that Congress, guided by decisions of Great Western ltr. Co., 240 Minn. 547, ~ N.W.2d 374 (19a4). Sec In geueral Anno., 21 A.L.R.2d 247 the Supreme Court, found it necessary pre(1952). sumably for this purpose, to amend the imple20. Deitrick '\". Grcnnc~, 300 U.S. 100, 200. GO S.Ct. menting statute to the Full Faith and Credit 480, 485 (1940): Mlllard '\". National Bauk, 33S Clause to include "Acts." G )llclL 610. 01 N.W.2d 8().1 (1SN3). Cf. Hansell T. Cit21. Wissner '\". WiMDer, 83S U.S. 655. 70 S.Ct. 39S (1900); United States v. Snyder, Iii F.2d 44. 47 (D.C.Cir. 19-:19); lladewe11 T. United States, 84 F. Supp. S29 fE.D.Tenn. 1949); . Hendrich T. Anderson, 191 F.2d 242 (1Oth eir. 1951); )loreto T. United States, lsa F.Supp. 82i (D.C.D.C.1955); Dyke v. Dyke. 22i F.2d 401 (6th Clf. 1955), cert. den. 352 U.S. 850, 77 S.Ot. 70 (1956). 22. Oliver, The Nature of the Compulsive Effect of State Law 1n Federal Tnx Proceedlnll'S, 41 Callf.L. Bev. G8S (1953); Comment,. What Law Governs Transferee LinbUltr for Federal Income Tax, 8 Stant.L.Bey. 261 (1956). See e. g. Com'r v. Stern, 357 U.S. 89, 78 S.Ct. 1047 (1958). I. 1 Crossker, Politics llnd the Constitution in the History of the United States (1953) 546. But see NadelmaIlD, Full Faith and Credit to Judgments and Public Acts, 56 Web.L.BeT. 33, 44, 60 (195i).

reterriDg to the "public acts" inclnded in tbe Clause ltse1t. Contrast Hughes v. Fetter, 341 U.S. 609, 613, n. 16, 71 S.Ct. 980, 983 (19;;1), refusing to rely on the statutory change; with Frankfurter, J., dissentlog in Carroll y. Lanza, 849 U.S. 408, 414, 422, 75 S. Ct. 804. 808, 812 (1955). Concerning the controversr around the interpretation of this phrase 1n Crosskey's Politics and the Constitution, see Rbe1nstein. The ConstitutIonsl Bases of JurJsdiction, 22 U.Ch1.L.Uc,\". i7ri, 787 (1955); 'intema, Review etc.. :! Am.J .Comp.L. 582 (1058). . See also Nadelmann, Full Faitll and Credit to Judltments and Public Acts, ~ Mlch.L.UeY. 33, 84, SO (1957), suggesting repeal of the amendment.

source of law whose "inftuence" on the solution of interstate problems was barely noted.' And indeed as late as 19i6, "a mistaken application of doctrines of the. conflict .of laws" was "purely a question of .local common law," .with which, the Supreme.Court had no concern.8 Current efforts to. establish· at least a rudimentary choice of law under the Constitution find, indeed, little support:'in older lines of authority. The earliest case sometimes referred to in this connection js probably Green v. Van Buskirk.~ .To be sure; in that case full faith and credit was given, but, quite unambiguously, to judicial proceedings rather than to the "laws" of a sister state. That these laws detennine the scope and meaning of these proceedings, can of course not justify the oppoSite conclusion.tO This is equally true for the earliest case. involving the enforcement of stockholders' liabilities by court aPPointed receivers in sister states.U . Now, it
state Commerce, see supra § 0 note12.

See also

Carrie- and Schrcter, Unconstitutional Discrimlnotion in the Conflict of l..awR: l)rh'ile/:(!s omi 1m·
munities, 69 Yale L.J. 1323 (1000): id .. Unconstltu· tional Discrimination 1n the Conflict of Laws: Equal Protection, 28 U.Cbi.LoReT. 1 (1960). 7. Cf. 1 Benle, Conflict of Lnws (103r.) 2ii: "The effect of the Constitution of tbc United States on the power of a Stnt~ to crente leJtul rlJthtl> is not It P.'lrt of the Conflict of Ln,,·s·'. But cr. Cheatham. A Federal Nation nnd Cou6ict of Laws, 22 Rocky lIt. L.lleT. 109 (1900), 8. Kryger T. Wilson. 242 U.S. 171, 17(;. 3i S.Ct. ~. 35 0916\. But see Currie. The Constitution and thl: Choice of Law: Governmental lnteremt: Slid till' Ju· dicial Function, 2(; U.Chl.L.RcT. {I, 73-i4 (1~1. 9. Green T. Van Buskirk. a Wall (72 U.S.) 30i (lSOO), 7 Wall. (74 U.S.) 139 (18GS). 10. See Hunt1n~ton v. Attrlll, 146 U.S. 657, 6OG. 13 S.Ot. 224, 22i (1892), clting the case as concemjn~ full faith and credit to judgments. See also Li~ht T. Light, 12 DL2d 50!?, 147 N.E.2d 34, 40 (1958), per Schaefer, J. But ce. Reese, Book Bevie"·,.42 A.B.A.J.970. on (1956). On the "inseparable" connection between the two questions, Supreme Council of Royal ArcullIm v. Green, 287 U.S. 581, 64G, 35 S.Ot. 724, 729 (lDlal; Ohio ex rel. Squire v. Porter, 21 C1ll.2d 45, fili, 1..->9 P.2d 691, 697 (1942), Traynor, J .• dissenting, cert. den. 318 U.S. 'iSi, as S.Ct. 531 (1942).


izens & Southern Nat. Bank, 213 GLL 20;;, 9S S.E.2d
628 (1roi).

2. See Crossker. op. cit. fll1pra note 1. ot r~.o. quotIng from Madison's record. But ct. n<'eS<' and Jobnson, Tbe Sl'OllC of Fnll Faith and Credit to JudJmlents, 4P CoLL.R('\·. 103, liN (1949) i Nadelmann, supra note 1, at 62ff. 3. Yntema. .The Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Anglo-American Law, 33 Mlch.L.Rey. 1120 (1935).

4. Klaxon Co. T. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 61 S.Ct. 1020 (1941). Supra I G Dote 41; § 8 Dote 2. 5. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738 i infra § 47. In Alaska Pack· ers Ass'n T. Industrial Accident Commission, 294 U.S. 632, 547, tit) S.Ct. 51S, 528, 624 (1935) and PacifiC Employers Ins. Co. Y. Industrial Accident CommisSion, 30G U.S. 493, 502, 59 ~.Ct. G29, G83 (1989), the Court had derived n full '1aith and credit due to statutes weaker than that due to judgments, from the absence in the 1mplementlng statute of a clause

16. See in ~enerlll Dodd. The Power of the Supr:emc Court to Ueview:Stnte DeciSions In the Field of Con. 1Uct of La,vs, 89 Ban-.L.lte\·. ri33 0020): Hilpert and Cooley, Tbe Federal Constitution and the Choice of Law, 2ri Wasb.U.L.Q. 2i (1939); Cheatham, Sources of Rules for Con1lict of Laws, 89 tJ.Pa.L. Bev. 430 (1941); Ross, Has the CoD1lict-of·Laws Become a Branch of Constitutionnl Law?, 15 Minn.L. Be'\". 161 (1931); Jackson, Full Faith and CredltThe Lawyer's Clnmc of the Constitution, 45 CoLL Rev. 1 (1945); Rbelnstein, Tbe Constitutional Bases of Jurisdiction, 22 U.Chi.L.Ret'. om; (19w); neese, Pun Faith and Credit to Statutes: The Defense of PubUc PollCI, 19 U.Cb1.L.Rev. 839 (1952); Harper, TIle Supreme Court and the Con6ict of Laws, 47 Col.L.Re,\". 8S3 (1947)'; Langmaid, Tbe Full Faith and Credit Bequired for Public Acts, 24 DLL.Rel'. 883 (1949); Comment, li1 Web.L.Be'\". 2G7 (1952) i Note, 80 N.Y.U.L.Ret'. 984 (1955). See also Currie, The Constitution and the "Transitory" Oause of Actlon, 78 Harv.L.Re'\". 36, 268 (1959) (on other grounds); infra § 122 notes 12-15. .Attempts at using the Privileges and Immunities Clause for this purpose bave remllined unsuccessful. See MUir T. KeSSinger, 35 F.Supp. 116 (D.C. 1940): Grover T. Washington Nat. Ins. Co., 100 Ark. 697, 119 S.W.2d ~3 (1938). ConcerniDg Inter.




Finney v. GUf, 189 U.S. 835, 23 S.Ct. 558 (1903).





is true, that in later cases such liabilities were claimed, and seemingly imposed, by virtue of full faith and credit to the statutes rather than to the proceedings of the state of incorporation.1J But this line of cases, too, fails to support a theory of constitutional choice of law: All that was decided in those cases was that a sister state assessment by a state officer was as much entitled to full faith and credit as a judgment. And, as will be shown presently, giving full faith and credit to such "quasi-judgments" does not require a choice of law 13 which couId claim constitutional standing. Moreover, even such faith and credit as there was purportedly given in those cases, has lost much of its effect since Pink v. A. A. A. Highway Express.'" Here the Court applied to the related recognition of an insurance assessment in a sister state the flexible formula (of less than full faith and credit) now prevailing in workmen's compensation cases to be discussed presently. liS This decision may well foreshadow the further decline of those attempts undertaken by the Supreme Court, either as a matter of due process 18
12. Converse v. Hamilton. 224 U.S. 243. 32 S.Ct. 415 (1012): Broderick v. Rosner, 2!l4 U.S. 620. 55 S.Ct. 580 (1035). But see Jackson. Full Faitb Ilnd Credit -The Lnwyer's Clause of. the Constitution. 45 Col. L.RE'v. 1. 15 (1045), treatln~ this recognition as one of administrative acts: Infra § -48. See nJso Stumberg 64. IUld In general Hohfeld. The Indlvldunl LiabiUty of Stockholders and the Cc.ntUct of Laws, 10 Col.L.Rev. !!83 (1910); Coleman, Corporate DIVIdends llDd tJie Contllct of r..a\VS, U3 Harv.L.Rev. 433 (1050); Abbot, Con1lIct of Laws and the Enforcement of the Statutory Liablllty of Stockholders in a Foreign Corporation, 23 Harv.L.Rev. 31 (1009); Note, 36 CoIL.ReV'. l10S (1936). See Iliso . Infra. I 148 note 25. cr. Currie, supra. note 6, at 288-200. 13. See also Chicago &; Alton R. R. v. WiggiDs Ferrr Co., 119 U.S. 615, 1- S.Ct:. 398 (1817). Here the "public act" credit to Which WllS said to be required, WQS a corporate charter. . 14. PInk v. .:l. A. A. Highway Express Co., 314 U.S. 201, 62 S.Ct. 241 (1941), infra note 19.
f S.

or as a matter of full faith and credit,IT to cure to fraternal benetlt associations and oth. er insurers the benefit of a uniform lawap.plicable all through the nation. In most these cases, too, the Court was able to promote this aim by virtue of the quasi-judgment character of assessments without having to. resort to a chOice of law· which would been needed for even raising the issue of the recognition of statutes. An assessment like a judgment is directed to the present parties while a statute merely establishes an abstract, rule of law which, in order to claim recognition, must first be "chosen".
This essential diiference may be made clear by contrasting the recognition of assessments with those cases in which the Court undertook to protect insurers' interests on the broader basis of recognition of foreign "laws". In a leading case, still used to support a general doctrine of "legislative juris. diction" (pp. 8, 12, 21), the Court pr0hibited Texas from enforcing a law designed
351, 38 S.Ct. 331 (1018); lIutual Lite Ins. Co. T. Lleblng. 250 U.S. 209, 42 S.Ct. 461 (1022); Home los. Co. v. Dick. 281 U.S. 391, 50 S.Ct. 338 (1030); Harttord Accident &; Iodemnity Co. v. Delta &; Pine Land co.. 202 U.S. 143, 54 S.Ct. 634 (1034); Aetna Lite IDS. Co. v. Dunken, 266 U.S. 389, 45 S.Ot. 129 (1924). See io geneml Overton, State DeclsioDS in ConflIct of Laws and Review by the United States Supreme Court under the Due-Process Clause, 22 Ore.L.Rev. 109 (1043); infra § 4O(a). That even Allgeyer v. Louisiana. supm, has not de1lnitlvely beeo lald to rest, is Illustrated by such deelsioDS llS StIlte lIutual Life Ass. Co. v. State, 345 S.W.2d 325, 33;i (Tex.Civ.App.1061).
17. Supreme Council of Royal Arcanum V'. Green. 23'r U.S. 531, 35 S.Ot. 724 (1915). For an analysis of this case and slmllar earlier cases, [e. g. Johnson v. New York Llfe Ins. Co., 181 U.S. 491, 23 S.Ot. 104 (1903) 1. see Carnahan. Conflict of Laws and Life Insurance Contracts (1958) § 28; Note, 51 Yale Y. 139 (1947). Order of United Commercial Travelers of America v. Wolfe, 331 U.S. 586, 61 S.Ct.·l355 (1947) was decided by a divided court (6:4) and has not enjoyed much authority. Ot. Trammel v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemell. 126· 1I0nt. 400, 253·~ 329 (1953). where the court. though distinguishing the Wolfe case, WllS "lmpressed with the logic of the dissenting oplniOD.,t- See also Sebesta v. Order of United Commercial Travelers, 203 Mise. . 319, 111 N.Y.S.2d 150 (1952); Order ot United Commercial Travelers T. Duncan. 221 F.2d 103 (6th Oir. 1965); Currie, supra note 8, at 52-650.


31 SOURCES § 9 to secure a minimum statute of limitations, Justice Black called, with regard to fraternal and based this holding upon Texas' duty un- insurance companies, a "tmique constitutionder due process to,.apply a contractuallimita- al protection",20 is likely to persist in a petion which was ygUd Wlder the law of Mexi- riod of growing concern for the unorganized co. In order to reach the issue whether Mex- insured bound by a mere contract of adheican cClaw" was to be thus "recognized", the sion,n Court had to "choose" Mexic~ . law as govIn that other fleld of corporate insistence ernlng ~e contract, th~ elevating a do~bt- upon the establishment of a uniform choice 2 ful confbcts rule to the dignity of a constitu- of law by constitutional compulsion: in the tiona! command.1TO No such assumption had, field of workmen's compensation' judicial of course, been in the assessment cas- willingness to comply has almost es wher~ t~e foreIgn ~~ent a~enc~ had from the beginning. In Bradford Electric ICchosen ltself?y .d~ectu:-g an mdivldual Light Co. v. Clapper,!3 the Supreme Court in command to the mdivlduaI 1l1S1lred. 1932 had impliedly adopted a choice of law Even in those cases in which the Court rule requiring application of the law of conwent beyond the recognition of such quasi- tracting. Only three years later,u as it did judgments and actually purported to estalr ever since, the Court recognized the constitulish a constitutional choice of law rule. its tional permissibility of other choices. We are rulings have resulted in the mere negative . .. osition that, lacking certain minimum credit to sISter state asse!Umlents not to preclude decision as to tbe RSSl1med membersblp of a restprop contacts, the state was not free to enforce dent: Watson v. Employers Liability ,\sSur. Corp.• its own laws typicallY designed. to protect .the 348 U.S. 66. 15 S.Ct. 166 (105-1), permittinJ: Louisiana . to enforce a (llreet nctlon statute notwithstandinginsUred.ls And even as to thIS proposltion, the law to [he contrary pre\'nllln~ at the place of it'must in the light of several recent decicontracting. See Note, it Ilarv.L.Rev. 614 (1D58). . ... ' b tl d bted h th h t See alsO infra § 3i oote 24; 140 note O. Slons,- now e grea y ou weer w a - 20. Black. J.. dissenting In Orner of United Com·





The res judicata effect of the foreign fJf'OC8etlin08 had not been claimed because of lack of personal jurisdiction. Id; at 206. See Infra notes 23 If. 16. Allgeyer Louisiana; 165 U.S. 578, IT S.Ot. 42T (1897); New York Llfe los. Co. v. Dodge, 246 U.S.


merclal Travelers of America Y. Wolfe. 331 U.S. 586. 17L Home IDs. Co. v. Dick. ~1 U.S. 301, JO S.Ct. 625 631 6i S.Ct. 1300 13i4 1380 (104;). 21. See in genernl Ehrenzwel.:. Adhesion Contracts lu 338 (1030). " " 18. Oompare Home Ins. Co. \". Dick. 281 U.S. 301,50 the Conflict of LAws, 53 Col.L.Re\". 10i2 (11Y'»). Iu S.Ct. 338 (1030). denyinJ: applicability of a Texas Order of ('nited Commercial Tra\'elers \'. Dunenn, statute purportlnJ: to extend n contrnctual statute ~ F.:!d i03 (6th Clr.• 11>55), the Wolfe cnse, supra of llmitations without regard to the la\v prevailing note 20, was. 00 otherwise similar facts, distinat the place of contrllCtlng, leit1&. Hartford Accident gulsbed on the ground that in that case the "six and Ind!mnlty Co. v. Delta &; Pine Laod Co., 202 U. months limitation WllS stamped upon the face of S. BS, 54 S.Ot. 6M (103·1). where the boldlng In the the Insurance certlflcate" (ut j06). See also Infra first case WllS seen limited to the prohIbition of the § 33 note ;)Jjf; § 112. appUcntlon by any state of "every local statutory polley solely upon the ground that ooe of the parties 22. The cn.ses involving the Uabillty of telegrnp!l comIs its o\VQ citiZen;" Hoopeston Canning Co. v. panies for the misdel1very of telegnuns and purCulleo, 318 U.S. 313, 317, 63 S.Ot. 602, 605 (1043), portlog to establish a federnJ choice of law, probwhere tbe Dick case WllS distinguished 00 the ably presuppose a national law noW abandoned grouod that the Court In that case had "no actual (I 8), IUld have lost their precedent \'alue tor various contact with the Insurance contract·" aDd 1oit" reasons. A.IlDo.. 50 A..L.R.:!d 221. 228 (1056). But Watson v. Employers LlnbUlty Assnr. 'Corp.• :us u. ct. Ooodrlch 25j. Whether Western Unloo TeleS. 66, 75 S.Ot. 166 (l954), lDfra note 10. graph Co. \'. Brown. 234 U.S. 5-!2, 34 S.Ct. 955 (1914) Bu CaD still be considered law as limitiog choice of It see alSO., First ,:unerlcan Nat. Bank v. Automobile low under the Interstate Commerce OIause (see infra! 40 ootes 341f.) seems doubtful. See stumns. Co.• 252 F._d 62 (6th Oir. 1058), denying appllcablllty of a forum penalty statute against de-. berg OS' Cook 148' supra! 6 note 12 faulting Insurers, to IlD Insurer admitted In the * " . forum state, though plaintiff was domiclled in that 23. Bradford Electric Light Co. v. Clapper, 286 U.S. state, Inter alia on the ground that such appHcntion 145, 52 S.Ct. 5n (1032), disapproved 10 Carroll v. to a contract made "'nth reference to the laws" ot Lanza. 349 U.S. 408, 75 S.Ct. 804 (1955). See infra another state, would violate due process I 1 40 note 22; Cume, supra note 8, at 19-30. 19.. Cf. Pink v. A..A.A. Highway Express Co., 314 24. Alaska Packers Ass'o v. Industrial Accident Comm'o, 204 U.S. 532,. 55 S.Ct. 518 (1935). U.S. 201, 62 S.Ct. 241 (1941), boldlng tull talth and




§ 9

gIledged system of conflict of laws" 33 in which
~tutes- should not and cannot be treated dif-


thus left with a test' of balancing interests lacking "any consistent pattern or design." II This test is a far cry from the language and
meaning of full faith and credit,16 and virtually indistinguishable from the test applied in international con1licts cases.I'l

The first, and to this time sole, attempts of the Supreme Court to create the basis for a new general scheme of constitutional choice of law on the basis of full faith and credit, were its decisions in Hughes v. Fetter J8 and First National Bank of Chicago v. United Airlines, Inc.!9 In the light of later authority these decisions may, indeed, in their widest possible scope, stand for the proposition that courts are compelled by full faith and credit Whatever the ultimate fate -of the Court's to take jurisdiction under the wrongful death attempts at creating a constitutional scheme statutes -of that sister state in which "all ele- of choice of law, this much seems clear: it ments" of the tort have occurred.30 But this is unfortunate that these attempts have been rule is limited by its jurisdictional content 31 made in the language of "full faith and credit to public acts" without referen~ to the as25. Jackson, supra note 12, at 16. sumed ruie of choice. In the "first place, such 26. Pacifi(' Employers lnlt. Co. T. Industrial Accident Commission. 30G U.S. 493. 59 S.Ct. 629 (939): Oar- language is probably due to an international dlllo T. Libert)· Mutunl Co., a.,a G.S. 469. 6i S.Ct. confiicts heritage (§ 2) and not reconcilable flOl (lO·Ii); Cnrroll T. Lnnm. 34fl t:.R. 4OS. 15 S.Ct. M4 (1{):ki). Sec also Collins v. Amerienn Buslines, with the intentions of some of the framers of 350 U.S. G2S. 'iG S.Ct. 5S2 (1900): MarylancJ Cas- the Constitution.U Secondly, the Court's lanualty Co. T. Paton, IIH F.2d 7Ga (9th Cir. 1952). guage fails to disclose the fact that faith and 27. Ct. Lauritzen T. Larsen. 3-10 U.S. Gil. 13 S.Ct. 921 (l9a3): The FJ(>tero T. Arias, 200 F.2d 20i (4th credit in this sense would require "a fullClr. Iroa); Jewtra\\' T. Hartford Accident " IndeulDity Co., 280 App.Dh·. 150, 112 N.Y.s.2d 727 (1952); infra § 40. 28. Hughes T. Fetter, 341 U.S. 609, 'i1 S.Ot. 980 (1951). Comments have been numerous. See e.g. 37 Corn.L.Q. 441 (1952); (u Bar'\'.L.Rev. 327 (1950): 49 Mich.L.Uev. 751\ (1951): 51 Mich.L.Rev. 207 (1952); ]00 U.Pn.L.Rcv. 126 (1951). See J)nTticularly Currie. supra notc. O. 29. First Nnt. Bank ot Chicago T. United Airlines, Inc., 342 U.S. 300, 72 S.Ot. 421 (1002). 30. Jackson, J., concurring In First Nat. Bank of Chicago T. United AlrUnes, Inc., 342 U.S. 300, 400, 12 S.Ct. 421, 423 (1932). SI. Hugbes v. Fetter. 341 U.S. 609, 6l2. D. 10. 71 S.Ot. 980, 982, n. 10 (1951), expressly distinguishes the ease in which a state having jurisdiction "chose to apply its own" law. See also Carroll v. Lanza, 349 U.S. 408, 413. 'rn S.Ct. 804, 807 (1955), distinguishing Bughes T. Fetter, supra., on the ground that the case at bar was one ot the forum granting "a1firmative relIef" under Its own law rather than excluding a foreign cause of action. Justice Frankfurter has undertaken several times to dlstlDguisb prior eases in this respect. Of. agllln Carroll v. Lanza,
349 U.S. 4OS, 414, 75 S.Ct. 8M, 80s (1954) (dissenting opinion). The Justice's concept of a "pre-exlsting relationshIp" between the paTties would serve best to characterize the absence of a need tor choice of Jaw in cases other than the wrongful death cases. Hugbes T. Fetter, 341 U.S. 600, 01G, 11 S.Ct. 980, 9~ (1001) (dissenting opinion). For an indication that some courts migbt extend the Tule to include substantiTe choice of law. see c. ~. Zirke1bach v. Decatur Cartage Co., 119 F.Supp. 'iiM. T'04 (N.DJDd. 1004). But see Anno., Iu A.L.lt.2d 7(12 (measure of damages In wrongful death actions). For a suggestion ot applicability to Blue Sk-y Laws, see Loss, Tbe Confiict of Laws and the Blue Sky Laws, 71 Harv.L.BeT'. 209. 225 (1951). But see also e. g. McGrath T. Tobin, 81 R.L 415, 103 A.2d 795 (1004). for historical criticism and restrictive interpretation.

as well as by -the impossibility, foreshadowed in the workmen's compensation cases, for such a rule to provide-~ with a constitutional scheme covering the many diverse situations in which the "elements" of the cause of action are distributed in several states. "Too few are the cases that reach the Court to enable -it even to give us a skeleton of such a law. At best we may hope that a semblance of such a scheme may result from -a century's patient groping by lower and lowest courtsunless the Court should see fit to overrule its decision in the Klaxon case (p. 28), and thus to restore the .aptest medium for the creation of a federal confiicts law.

best been able to establish a set of minimum

rules of choice of law designed to :exclude
arbitrary application of the lex fori.37 We may hope that the Court will resign jtself to the same minimum aim in its current resort to "full faith and· credit" •

ilIerently from common law rules.at Thirdly, most important, this language has pre~4Vented the Court from analyzing such choice law rules as it has impliedly reco~: If ~ctions based on the wrongful death "statutes - -sister states must be entertained, we will to lmow whether it is the statute of the 1Jt;ate where the wrongful conduct was committed, or where the injury was inflicted, or -~here death occurred. We have not learned 6is so far.- Indeed, it seems "difficult to _~int to any field in which the Court has ~. 'Dlore completely demonstrated or more can?;. -.didly confessed the lack of guiding stand.;.-.: ..ardsof a legal character than in trying to -J.~: ~etermine what choice of law is required by .~ ~e o n ." 3(j Constituti -"'~.


§ 10. Since the decision in the Klaxon (p. 28), under which even -federal co~ must in diversity- cases apply .state confiicts




We have seen that the Supreme Court, in 'ftliance on the Due Process Clause, has at

~{- sa. llbelnste1n. Tbe Constitutional Bases of Juris':'7~~_ -diction, 22 U.ChlL.Rev. 77u, 788 (l9:;:).



"lW. Supra § 4 note 6; Jack80n,Full Faith and Credit -The LaWYer's Clau~e of the Constitution. 4» Col. L.ReT'. I, 12 (1945). From here to "fuU fnith and -credit to contracts" [see Order of United Cammer- da1 Travelers of America T. Wolfe. 331 U.S. 5SG, G7 S.Ot. 1355 OW;). supra note 17: De Lnnda T. Lucom, 208 MIse. 394, 143 N.Y.S.2d 600. 698 (1955) J. there Is only one step. It seems doubtful wl)(~ther the dictum in MagnOlia Petroleum Co. T. Hunt, 320 - U.S. 480. 430, (u S.Ct. 208, !!12 '(1943) ("faith and credit . . . ·to which locol common and statutory law is entitled") can be taken as more tban a casual remark. But sec Cheatham, Federal Control of Contllct of Laws, 0 Vand.L.Rev. 581,003 (953). Ct. Camallnn, WbDt js Happening in the Confilet ot Laws, 0 Vand.L.lle,·. OOi, 021 (19~). SS. Wells T. Simonds Abrash'e Co.. 345 U.S. 514, 73 S.CL 850 (1900), permits application of the statute of limitations ot the forum to a "foreign cause of llctlon." This decision mayor may not indicate a partial withdrawal' from the Bugbes doctrine. Infra ! 40 notes 11 ft. Notwithstanding similar language, the FuU Faltll QDd CredIt Clause of the AustraUan Constitution has not been applied to effect; a choice of law. Cf. Koop v. Bebb, 84 Commw. L.n. G29 (1951): and in general Cowen, AmericanAustralian Private International Law (1957) 19t., 261f.; Jd., The Conflict of Laws: 'l'he Experience of the AustralJan Federation, 6 Vand.L.ReT'. GS8, OM

law, state law has become the primary source of the law of choice of. law. That the states are free to legislate in this field cannot be doubted, even if such legislation should "have some incidental or indirect effect in foreign countries." 1 And in fact they have frequently made use of this power, both in _statutes expressly stating rules of confiict of laws and in primarily "domestic" statutes -whose "interspatial" scope (claim to applicability to foreign facts) must be ascertained by interpretation.! The resulting diversity of state -conflicts laws is, of course, particularly undesirable in this field which stresses the greatest possible unifOrmity of decision among states and nations. The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws has, therefore, been especially active in the conflicts field. It has proposed a large number of statutes, including Acts on Ancillary Administration of Estates, Attendance of Foreign Witness, Criminal Extradition, Desertion and Nonsupport, Divorce RecOgnition, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Execution of Wills, Foreign DepOSitions, Interstate Arbi3i. Supra notes 18ft. Justice Jackson, supra note 84.
at 29, would have liked increased constitutional control as to such questions as multiple domicUe; supra § 1 note 4. Infra § 77 note 7. I. Clark T. Allen, 831 U.S. 503. 51'i, 6i S.Ot. 1481, 1439 (1947). See supra § j note 1.





32. Nade1mnnn, supra note 1, at 55tl'.; Id., On the Origin of the Bankruptcy Clause, 1 Am.J.Leg.BIst. 215, !!25 (lOW'). Originally, ''pUblic acts" were to be included where. as IDSOIV£!DCY acts, they "sen-e the Uke purpose" as judgments. Madison's Notes, 2 Farrand, Tbe Records of the Federal ConTention of 1187 (1911) 441. See also infra ! 48(1) (a).
\ ....



216. Jackson, supra note 34. at lG. See also Infra If 88 at notes U1l'_; 40 at notes 5fl'. lbrtnzwtlg Conflict of Laws-J

See supra § 5 note 19: and In general Viseber, Dcr lUcbter als Gesetzgeber 1m IPB (1900).





§ 10

tration of Death Taxes, Interstate Compromise of Death Taxes, Judicial Notice of Foreign Law, Powers of Foreign Representatives, Probate of Foreign Wills, and Proof of Statutes and Stock Transfer.3 The apparent inconsistency and incompleteness of this branch of the law, which has grown in a rathe~ haphazard fashion over a comparatively short period of time, account for an increasing trend towards codification. Besides isolated individual schemes;' the Restatement of Contlict of Laws of the American Law Institute may be taken as an expression of this trend, which abroad has led to numerous legislative enactments IS and projects.G Doubts have been expressed re3.

peatedly as to the desirability of such endeavors at this time. '7




The contlicts law of jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the international or interstate jurisdiction required for the recognition of foreign judgments. Since, however, the foreign court's "local" jurisdiction, under its own law and-the Constitution, is usually first examined as a condition for such recognition, this jurisdiction will be dealt with :first (§ § 25 if.), after a discussion of the contlicts problems arising as to the parties' procedural capacity (§§ Ilff.>'
Delaume, A Codification of French Private Internationn! Law. 29 Can.B.Rev. 721 (1051). For crltlsee Pllenko, La dmJ&= sp.9#stet; Ie DIP dans Ie proJet du nouveau COifi'i!'ffit19'5iD~'6 Rev.Bell.Dr.lnt. 319 (1053); n!t --, -fEii,iu 6 Ft'lUl~iS de DIP. Codification du JJQl#fg ., '!7$ . 2S(); (". • • abroad one will taUiil=i~ See n1so infra § 101 notes 3, 4.
~ ~_that-:French> -experiment,


(Herein of Local Jurisdiction)

First Sub-Chapter


Uniform Laws Annotnted, volumes 0, OA, OB, 00




Simplifying the Conflict ot LIlws:

The Parties Before' the Court (Procedural Capacity)
§ 11. The procedural capacity of the parties (standing to sue and to be sued) should be distinguished from other facets of the courts' jurisdiction, particularly in view of the different history in this respect of inCtividuals and corporations (§§ 27ff.). But, in order to preserve the traditional order of treatment, the capacity of corporations will largely be' dealt with in connection with the process requirements of jurisdiction (§ 33). As to both individuals and corporatioDS, choice of law rules will be discussed in the Second Part of this treatise,1 and the impact of procedural capacity upon the- recognition of judgments in the next chapter of this Part.
son able to sue or to be sued or to act validly in such proceedings.2 These principles, like all those of jurisdiction, may either determine the court's authority ("Does the Court Ha1J8 Jurisdiction?", §§ 251f.) or its willingness to exercise it in the particular situation ("Will the Court Take Jurisdiction?", §§ 34 ff.) • Since these questions, in view of the lack of constitutional rulings, are h~ ever distinguishable in,the..&e1d of procedural capacity, they will be discussed together. This discussion will be limited, however, to those problems that have proved troublesome in con1licts cases.3

Bill Proposed tor Enactment by the Congress, 36

.A.B.A.J. 1003

See e. g. the "Czechoslovak Act on Private Inter- . nationnl Law," 31 .J.Comp.Leg. &; Int'I.I.. (3d Ser.) Pts. III, IV, 'is (1048); Nicoletopoulos. Private International Law In the New Greek Civil Code. 23 7.. Ji~renzwejg-,. American Conflicts Law In Its Tulane L.Rev. 4152 (1049); llcCusker, the· Italialt '- -.:ypA~~ive : Should the Restatement Rules ot Con filet of Laws, 25 Tulnne LoRev. 'i0 bi!~!!~DHj~ueiH", lOS';' U.Pa.L.Rev. 133 (1954); aDd (1950); KuratowskJ, A General Outline ot Some t!II!I nl_~b1, SeloRead. 131L Principles of Con1llct of Laws in Poland,. Studies om;i,. gBfab!e-resmt of wholesale judlclnl adop•• ,In Pollsh and Comparative Lllw (1045) 110. ~nestateuient with the virtual effect ot a Among older laws see e.g. Arts. 3, 11, 13.41, 170. ~reDZWejgfThe Restatement ns a Source 099, :!12S of the French CivU Code; Arts. 'i-31 ot ot" Confllcts Law In Arizona, 2 AriZ.L.Rev. 171 the Introductory Law to the Germnn CIvil Code. (1961) ; and generally 1IlIner, Restatement: The ~ See e.g. ~adelmann· and von l(ehren, Codification Failure of a Legal Experiment, 20' U.Plttsb.L.Rev. of French Con1llcts Law, 1 Am.J.Comp.L. 404 (1052); 705 (1050).


Foreign legal literature- distinguishes in The present sub-chapter will examine the general between a person's"capacity to be a Principles (of forum or- fOreign law) upon party in court proceedings, and his right to which a court will deny its jurisdiction be"In every suit legal entity as cause a party to the proceedings is not a per- 2. the real plalntl1f, there mnst be- a or artIJlcfa1 pereither a natural
I. As to immunities phrased In jurisdictional laDgoage, see Infra § 31 note 28. For a case Involving

the converse problem ot active procedural capacIty bnsed on rules of substantive law, see- e.g. Levlock v.- Spanos, 101 N.H. 22, 131 A.2d 319 (1951) (lex loci applied to administrator's staDdIog to sue). See Intra. H 136, 139, 146.

son, or a quasl-artU1c1al person, such as a partner· ship; and where a suit Is brought in a name which is neither, it Is a nulUty . • ." Board of Road and Revenue Comm'ers ot Chandler Co. v.' Collins, 94 Ga.App. ~, 95 S.E.2d 758 (1H6).
3. For tullel" coverage. see Clark,.. Law of Code Pleading (2d ed.l941) 155tr.








act validly therein.' But English legal lantl

guage fails to draw these distinctions; and in this 'Country these capacities are in general 4. Compare tbe German "Partelfl1b1gke1t and "Pro- subject to the same rules of choice of law and zessfilhigkeit" [pagenstecher, 64 Z. ZlvUpr_ 17 to the same jurisdictional principles. No at(1951) ; Rlezler 414]: the Italian "eapacitA di essere parte" and "capacitU di stare in giudicio" [De tempt will be made, therefore, to follow the Nova, Esistenza e capacito. del soggetto in DIP Ital- fpreign analysis. 6 But in view of the differiano, Studi in Honore dl Perassi (1957) SSl, 882]; and the French "capacite de joulssance" and the ent policies governing the (active) capacity "eapacltl! d'eserclse" {Batlft'ol 468). For a compar- to sue and the (passive) capacity to be sued, ative annlysis of the procedural capacity to act on these capacities will be dealt with separately.
bebalf of a certain party, Ree Fragistas, Die Prozesstandschllft 1m Internlltionnle1l J?rozessrecbt, Festschrift Hans LeW'ald (1958) 4ilft.
5. But see 1 Rabel 175i 2id.147_

"" ~ of little import in this context. Restrictive 'theories 9 have retained their early signifi:.Gnce only with regard to the passive capaci~ "of foreign corporations, to be dealt with ".elsewhere (§ § 24, 33) •
" Jy distinguished all questions involving the -admission of foreign corporations to do busi.1less within the state, which are purely ques"ttons of domestic and constitutional law. IO "" Even here, however, restrictive theories ilave created a series of pseudo-confiicts i>robiems. .Thus, corporate ability to engage in .certain activities or to acquire or own forum Jand is often discussed in jurisdictional terms. u Confiicts problems will arise in this context only in those states in which the taking out of a license is required for the bringang of suits upon forum contracts. In such
capacitY of foreign assoeiations in Germany under the1r own national laws. On tile possible reeo~ni­ .tlon of "international corpomtions", see Burman, SupraDationale Aktlengesellschaften?, 100 Arch.Oi\'. Pro 156 (19:ii). Sec nlso Salldherg. Quelques prob16mes du droit international des sochHcs, 4 Ned. Tijdschr.lnt.It. au:! (ln~i); Hahn. 1'~lIrlilolll: Tbe Conception of Internntlonal l'ersollnllt~·, 'i1 Hnr\·.L. .Ret'. 1001, 1<J.H (10a~J; infra § 13ti note 22; § 14:; Dote 3. 9. "I'oung, Forel~11 Companies ftml otber Corporations (1912); Dewey. The J1istoric RnckJm)und of Corporate Legal Pen:onnllty. a:; Yale L.J. o:id (1020); Laski, The Personality of AssoCiations, :!II llar,·.L. ReT. (IO.J (l91G): Comments. 30 Yale L.J. (ID!! (192.); 79 U.Pa.L.Re\". 950, 1110 (1931); infra § 24.
10. See e. g. Trm'elerf; Health Ass'n ' .. VirJtinia, 339 U.S. 043, 70 S.Ot. fl2i (1949), upll01dln~ VifJtlnln's "power" to enjoin defendant cor}lOrations from soliciting Insurance bllslnes~ from '·irJrlnln reflldents. See also Wheeling Steel Corp. T. Glnnder. 33i U.S. 662, 69 S.Ot. 1291 (1949); 2 Rabel 144; Oheatham Casebook 973ft'.; lsaa~ An Analysis of Doing Business, 25 Co1.L.Ret'. 1018 (199..5); Huntington, Doing BUSiness in Utah, 4 Utah L.Be\". 518 (195G).
U. This problem is the same as thnt regarding the activities of any Datural person. Once this 1s understOOd, tbere 1s no reason for insisting upon the application of the law of incorporation, any more than of that of a natura} person's domicile. If the forum decides that the public dealing with the fOreign corporation deserves protection without regard to limitations of the corporation's capacity UDder 1ts own law, it may prefer applleation of the lex fori or the lex contractus. See e.g. BUI-Davis Co., Ltd. T. Atwell, 210 OaL 444, 10 P.2d 463 (1932) i and in general 2 Rabe1164tr; infra 1144 note 21.

cases it has been held "that the licensing requirements and those governing-the doing of business for the purpose of service of process (§ 33) are not co-extensive";U Dissolved corporatio~. " There is much

Fr~m these problems there shouid be clear- law to the effect that a foreign corporation,
though dissolved in the state of its creation, may still be sued by domestic creditors (§ 24). This problem is usuall-y dealt with together with that of the active procedural capacity of such a defunct corporation. But in view of the different policies determined by the forum's interest in protecting its own citizens. the law may differentiate in effect at least, between the dissolved coryoration's standing to sue and to be sued; U
If neither the law of incorporation nor that of the forum provides for continued procedural capacity, there is of "course no problem.1.& The common law rule will obtain under which dissolved corporations are treated like deceased persons unable either to sue or to be sued. IG Nor is there any problem where both laws provide for a- corporate existence after dissolution. Such" provisions typically allow dissolved corporations to· sue for the purpose of winding up their affairs;lG or, for
12. See e. Jt. St1fl~ T. Dnrahle Knit Corp., 4 Mlsc.!!tl OC.G. 14i N."I'.S.2d arh1 (lOw). S<'C nl"" Taylor ". State. 2S1 Wash.2,} 038, ]88 1'.2,1 Gil (]!)4S) Ccleclnratory judlO1lent suit); Automotrlz ,M GoUn elc' (::111· fornla RA. de C.\". , •. ltesnlcl., 47 Onl.2d 'i!l!!. :JClG P.2d 1 (10;;.). For a ca~e i11\"olvllll: n fOl"el;m c(lIJtract. see Ne\\' EnJtlnnd !tond Mnchlnery Co. Y. Calkins, 121 Vt. 118, 140 A.2d iM (1959).

never had much difficulty in bringing suit outside the state of their creation, either § 12. "Legal existence". When the pro- themselves 15 or through their members in cedural standing of corporations became a the corporate name G (although application problem of confiicts law in this country, it of many constitutional guaranties has rewas not determined by the ancient history mained doubtful). 'I The nationality of the 8 of the concept of-legal entity I but by the hos- corporate· enterprise, so crucial elsewhere, tility against political and monopolistic fea4. See Henderson, op.clL suprn note 2, at 163ft. tures of early legislative incorporation.l~ For Contlnenta} writill~, see llhchen. Corporate Personality, 24 Hnr\·.L.lle\·. !m3, 34i (1911): Laski, This hostility may well have contributed to The l)ersonnlity of Associations, 29 Hnr\'.L.ltet'. the doctrine, first announced in Bank of Au404 (1910). gusta v. Earle,3 that "a corporation can have S. ~ Duteh 'We¢ Jndln Co. T. Henriques. 2 Ld. Unym. 1rJ32, 1 Str. Gl!! (1.29); Society for the no legal existence out of the boundaries of the l'ropngatio11 of the Gospel T. P:l\\"leL 4 l'et. (21) U.s.) sovereignty by which it is created." But ow480. 501 (1830). per StOl'$', J. (capncity to sue ing either to economic necessity or to the "admitted" by pleading to the merits); Infra § 146. early recognition of the analytical untenabili- 6. Rnnk of United States T. De'renn."':, :; Ornnch (9


ty of this doctrine,' corporations apparently


. ~t-.

Sec e.~. N'ekUm, The Personality Conception of the Leltnl EntitY (1938) 230".: Serick, RechtRform und ReallUit Juristlscher l'ersonen (1955); HaUls, Corporate PefSOnnlity (193m: Snlleilles, De In per· sonalltc juridique (2d ed.lre::!); Vinogradoff, Juridical Persons, 24 Col.L.Re\'. UW (192-1); Undin, The Endless Problem of Corporate Personality, 32 Col. L.Re\'. 643 (1932); Gowel·, Modern Company Law (2d ed.195i) 21ft.; Gra,·eson, Status in the Common Law (1953) 73; infra 5 ~44.

2. Henderson, The Posltion of Foreign Corporations in American Constitutional LaW' (1918) 10ft.; Hunt, The De\'e1op~t of the Business Corporation in England, 1~lstri (1936) 16ft.; 2 Rabel 1241f. i Farrier, Jurisdiction over Foreign Corporations, 17 M1nn.L.Ret'. 270, 2iltf. (1933) i Comment, 66 'Yale L.J. 1545, 555 (195i). S. Bank of Augusta T. Earle, 18 Pet. (38 U.S.) 519, 588 (1839). See also Paul v. Virgin1a, 8 Wall. (75 U.S.) 168 (1868).

U.S.) 61 (lMO): Soclcty for the l)ropnJtntlon of the Gospel T. Wheeler, Fed.Cas.No.13.100 (181.J): Portsmouth Livery Co. T. Watson, 10 Mass. 91 (1813). 7. Kcntucky Finance Corp. T. Parmnount Auto Exchnn~e Corp., 262 U.s. 544, 43 S.Ct. 63G (1923). See in general Henderson, op.cit. supm note 2, at 5Off. Wbile corporations are "persons" under tIle Due Process and Equal Proteetlon Olauses of tbe Constitution, tbey are not "citizens" within the meantng of the Privlleltes aDd Immunities Clause. Asbury Hospital T. Cass Countr, 326 U.S. 207 (1945). Concerning gOTermnental corporations, see e.g. Weble, Govermnent-Oontrolled BuslDess Corporations: A Symposium, 10 Tul.L.ReT. 79 (1935); Comment, 42 Corn.L.Q. 540 (1957). On the impact of the Interstate Commerce Clause. see e. g. Sioux Remedy Co. T. Cope, 285 U.S. 197, S5 S.Ot. 57 (1914); Onion Brokerage Co. T. Jensen, 322 U.S•.202, 64 S.Ot. 967 (1943) i infra § 40 DOtes 34#. 8. Kronsteln, Tbe Nationality of International Enterprises, 62 Col.L.Rev. 983 (1952). See also 2 Rabel n9; Kesel 687, 689. coneern1Dg the procedural





13. The law applicable to recelTt'rs is dlseuRSE!(l Infro H 10, 22. See in ~eneral Mann, A Note on the Bevi\'icntion of n Dissolved .Foreign Corporntlon. 15 Mod.L.Ret'. 479 (1952); id., Tile Dlssolve() Cor. poration, 18 Mod-L.Re\". 8 (1955); LouBsouarn. I.e; con1Uts de lois en matiere de socl6tes (1949) 45-1 fi'" 14. See e.g. Standard Lumber 00. T. Interstate TrUSt Co., 82 F.2d 340 (5th Cir.l006): Ii Fletcher, CY· clopedla of tbe Low of Private Corporntlonfl ~ S58:: (1933 and Supp.); Note, Suabillty of Dissolved Foreign Corporations, 40 Corn.L.Q. 618 (1955). 15. Marlon Phospbate Co. T. Perry, 74 F. 425 (5tb Olr.



16. Some of these statutes extend the cB,paclty of : dissolved corporation for a Umlted number Cl. years oDly. See e.g. 195. m R.S. Co 32, t 157.9.J




Ch. 1

§ 12



on hJs own behalf.n Since conditions for the bringing of such derivative actions vary from state to state, the stockholder's procedural capacity often presents a problem of contlict The forum will most probably deny the of laws. Although this would appear to be a foreign corporation's standing to sue if the question of procedure calling for the applilaw of the state of its incorporation lacks a cation of the lex fOri, courts seem inclined to provision for continued active capacity.IS But apply the law of the state of incorporation. it is not certain by any means that, converse- Thus this law has been applied, e. g., concernly, a statute of that state, which provides for ing the stockholders' obligation first to obsuch capacity, will necessarily be "given ef- tain general stockholders' action or to eXplain fect in another state, although no such stat- the absence of an effort to this end.!t ute exists in the latter state," 19-un1ess the On the other hand, the forum will probably corporation qualifies as a "statutory suc- prefer to apply its own law governing the excessor.":o tent of security to be furnished by the plainStockholders' derivative actions. In cer- tiff in a suit against foreign corporations. tain situations a shareholder is entitled to An Ohio court has held that a Pennsylvania sue on behalf of the corporation on a cor- statute permitting the defendant to require, porate cause of action rather than directly in certain cases, security for its reasonable expenses of litigation, was not applicable "exBut tbe mnjority of stlltutes have no time limitll· traterritorially", this being a matter of tlon. "remedial rights" not uinseparable from the 17. See Levy v. Lleblln!:, 238 F.2d n05 (7th Clr.l056), cert. den. 3G3 U.S. 036, i7 ~tCt. 812 (105i). cause of action." l!3 Conversely, Pennsylva'1& T.elserson &: Adler v. I(eam, 266 S.W.2d 352 nia would probably grant the greater pro(Ky.App.l054l; Fidelity l(etnls Corp. v. Risley, iT tection of her law to an Ohio corporation CnloApp.2d 3TT, I1G P.2d l:iD2 (11)46); Billiard Tnble lit.:. Corp. y. First·Tyler Bank &: Trust Co., 16 F. lacking such protection under its own Jaw, Supp. 000 (N.D.W.Vn.1038); Seaboard Terminals Corp. \'". Standard on Co., 35 F.Supp. 006 (S.D.J.'i.Y. even where Pennsylvania law does not ex1040); l(acmilIan Petrolenm Corp. v. Griffin, 00 Cnl. pressly purport to apply to foreign corporaApp.2d 523, 222 P.2d 60 (1050); Gordon v. Loe\v's Ine, 141 F.Supp. 398 (N.J.lD56). See also Cbicago tions. Plaintiff would apparently not be T1tle &: Trust Co. v. Forty·One Tbirty·Slx Wilcox permitted to claim violation of full faith an~ Bldg. Corp.. 302 U.S. 120,124, 58 8.Ct.l25.126 (l037). credit to the Ohio law since he cannot -avail 19. Rest. f 158, comment e Tbe case law is incon· clusive: Stentor Electric lUg. Co. v. Klaxon Co., 23 himself of the "forum and at the same time F.Snpp. 351 (D.O.Del.l038) (forum lnw not stated): escape the terms on which it is made availStensvad v. Ottman, 123 llont. 158. 208 P.2d 507 (1949) (favored redemption claims); Dundee Mortg. &: Trust Investment Co. v. Hugbes. 89 F. 182 (C.C. 21. Stevens,. Private Corporadons (2d ed.l949) 183fr.; Prunty; The Sbarebolders' Derivadve Suit: Notes 0re.l898); Harris-Woodbury Lumber Co. v. Comn, on Its Derivation, 32 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 080 (1957). See 11O-F.231 (W.D.N.O.l010). Tbe only case cited In Illso-Infra § 148. . support of tbe Restatement rule by 2 Beale, Confilct of Laws (1935) 146 concerns a domestic corporation, 22. Steinberg v. Hardy. 00 F.Supp. lOT (D.C.Conn. IIIlnoia P. &: L. Corp. v. Hurley, 49 F.2d (8th Clr. 1960), applying Delaware law as the law of Incor1931). poration: Rest. f 183. See in general Comment, 33 20. Relle v. Rundle. 103 U.S. 222 (1880) (for pur· N.Y.U.L.Rev. n (1058). poses of diversIty of cit1zensh1p). Full faith and credlt was held applicable In Bemhelmer v. Con· 23. Berlm!itz v. Humpbrey, 130 F.8upp. 142. 145 (N. verse. 206 U.S. 516, 21 S.Ct. 155 (1007); Converse D.Oblo 1955). Coben v. Beneficial Industrial Loan v. Hamilton, 224 U.S. 243, 32 S.Ot. 415 (1912); Clark Corp.. 331 U.S. 54l, 3M, 69 S.Ct. 1221, l229 (1949). v. WnUard, 292 U.S. 112. 54 S.Ot. 615 (1934). See leaves open the question wbether this boldlng could In general Obeatbam, Tbe Statutory Successor, Tbe be contrary to full faith and credit. See infra· note-. Receiver and the Executor In Contllct of Laws, 24; and in general Oomment, 11 Harv.L.Rev. 814, 44 CoI.L.Rev. 549 (1944); Intra f 16 note 25. 959 (1958). that matter, stockholders to sue upon assets vested in them upon or after dissolution.l1 But confiicts problems will arise where the laws diifer in this respect

able." 2' That the right to security has been held "substantive" for the purpose of applying state law in,. the federal court under the Klaxon doctriner (§ 9),!5 does not, of course, affect the characterization of the question in interstate cases. ConfliCts problems will also arise as to whether plaintiff in a derivative suit has proacity as a "shareholder" The cedurat cap ·ts .d ~-i forum s tatute may m ake cIear tha t I e.u.u ti . applicable as to both domestic and for.on ndants.l!8 Otherwise courts seem in-

Other Associ8.tions. That any natural person, in the absence of statutory prohibition, may sue under an assumed name or a firm name, is beyond doubt.30 From this one might assume a similar capacity of several persons to sue jointly under such a name.


e1gn e clined to apply the law of incorporation to h th rd titl· . d · e ISTeqwre the quest Ion weer reco hether equitable ownership is suffi~en;'l!7 But it has also been said that where
"the right of action and the liability" are -,.... I ''th tie f the e ques on 0 governed b y f O.....m aw, person entitled to maintain that action must be determined" by that law.!! Forum law was also applied in determining an "innocent stockholder'S" right to intervene in a suit brought for a foreign corporation dominated by alien enemies.29
24. Cohen v. Beneflcfal Industrinl Loan Corp., 331



it see:: to be .th; se~ed ~e that an ~~corpodra e I assOCltha rized°~ bnot a pete~:IS son m aw an , un ess au 0 y statu , ·t as .ty t 0 sue". the 1irm name.311 h " no capacI m . . . . The mconcluslveness of this reasorung has been repeatedly shown. ''Personality'' in the sense of a 1 gal tity' legal J. e en IS a cone USlon from rights and obligations rather than their b · 32 • • asiS. The orIgIn of the rule seems to be the courts' reI~ctance to ~~ibute to unincorporated assocIations. pnvlleges presu~abl~ reserved to corporations by the sovereIgn. W·th . . . I the weakenmg of ~ch archaIC reasonmg~ hardly remams any reason for mamtaining the'rule as such. It may be exl'\aIOfoed ' . . 1:""..... that by virtu ofelth er JUdiC1al 3-1 or e


U.S. ;:;.n, M-i, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 1229 (1049) (dictum).

30. See e.!:. Kretltrr v. United Stnt~. 201 F.2d :1.1 (lOth Clr.lOf)2): Keelln!: r. Pi-iehe. 210 lown 100, 25i N.W. 100 (1034): nnd In lreneral Anno., 012 A.L.R. -2d ~16, particularly as to Fictftlons ~nmes Acts. See nlso Lollisell llnd Hnzard, Pleadlng md Procedure:

State nod Federnl (1062).

Industrinl Loan Corp., 331 U.S. {WI, 69 S.Ct. 1221 (1949). On "reallJ:DlDent" of tbe defendant corporation as a party plaintiff for diversity purposes, see Smith v. Sperling, 3iH U.S. 91, 11 S.Ct. 1112 (1031). Ot. lIcClure v. Borne Chemical Co., 202 F.2d 824. 831 (3d Clr. 1961).

Cohen v.


26. See e.g. CalIf. Corp. Code § 834(a).

1.7. Gallup v. Oaldwell; 120 F.2d 90 (3d Clr.l041),

lloffat Tunnel League \"'. United States, 289 U.S. 113. 118. 5.1 S.Ct. :H3. a.J!; (1032). See nlso e.g. Rose v. Beckham, :!6-l "'-Ia. :!OD, S6 So.2d 215 (1000); International Harvester Co. of America v. ClementsMiddleton Co., 35 8.W.2d 462 (Ter.Clv.App.l031). For tbe civtllaw rule to the contrary. see e.g. Coast v. Hunt Oil Co., 06 F.Supp. :;3 (D.C.I4.l051); Lloyd, Unincorporated Associations (1038) 187ff.. 2l0ff. On English law, id., at loofl'.; Gower, lIodern Company Law (2d ed. 1951) 21Off. See generally infra f 149.

per Goodrlch, J., applying New Jersey law in Delaware. See also Steinberg v. Hardy, supra note 22; Rest § 182.
280 App.Dlv. 791, 112 N.Y.S.2d 841 (1952) (Canadian

32. See e.g.


Concurring opinion in Hlrshborn v. Hlrsbborn.

29. Kaufman v. Soci~ Internationale, ete.. 343 U.S. 156, 72 S.Ot. 611 (1952). See In general Domke, "Piercing the Corporate Ven" in the Law of Ec0-

nOmic Warfare, (1955] WJs.L.Rev. 77; Berger, "Disregarding the Corporate Entity" for StockhOlders' Benefit, 55 CoLL.Rev. 808 (1955). On Wl "Ingenious" but unsuccesstul device for obtaiD1Jlg jurisdiction by a recelversb1p, see Application of Burge, 282 App.Dlv. 219, 122 N.Y.S.2d 233 (1958), nfrd 306 N.Y. SU, 118 N.E.2d 822 (1954).

Lloyd, Unincorporated AssocIations (1938) ; Sturges, Unincorporated Associations as Parties to -Actions, 33 Ynle L.J. 383, 300 (1924); Mngruder and Foster. Jurisdiction over Partner· sblps. 31 Harv.L.Rev. 793, 7D6 (1924); Crane, _Law of Partnersblp (2d ed. 1952) 304; Lattin and Jen· nlngs, Cases and Materials on CorporatIons (3d ed. ImsG) 15-19; Clark, Law of Code PleadIng (2d ed. 1941) 201. And comparcJ Warren. Corporate Ad· Dodd. vantages witbout Incorporation (1929); Dogma and Practice In _ Law of AssocIations, .J2 the Harv.L.Rev. D11 (1029). 33.. Sturges, supra note 32, at 405. 34. For a discussion of varions devices by wblt.b tbe' courts could reach this result, see Sturgeot, supra Dote 32, at 399.


Cll. 1 THE PARTIES BEFORE THE COURT 40 legislative as reform, partnerships and other cured by amendment; U and that it fails to associations will ultimately be as freely per- apply to counterclaims.43 Finally, the rule mitted to sue under their firm names as are does not prevent bringing of class actions by individuals and corporations.S6 But consid- one or more of the members on behalf of all erations of res judicata similar to those gov- others;·' the appointment of an agent to erning "class suits" (§ 64) may compel com- sue ~; or the enforcement of a title held by promise solutions; and there ,may be need ' an officer for the benefit of the association;"o for distinctions among various typeS of as- Ahd unincorporated associations have always 'sociations.3' ~t is becoming increasingly im- been treated as "legal entities" for many othperative to permit large uriincorporated as- er purposes, such as venue,4'Z contracts, sales sociations, such as labor unions 38 or coopera- and mortgages, and the receiving of testa48 tives, to sue as legal units. mentary dispositions.
,This development is likely to continue and Notwithstanding the lack of uniformity beappears not to be counteracted by reasons of tween the states, conflicts problems appear to compelling theory or business practice. 30 be rare, perhaps due to the inclination of This is indicated by statutory reform in a courts to apply their own laws upon a ',proce4t substantial minority of states.40 Moreover, dural characterization. More serious questhe jurisdictional character of the common tions are presented .as to the passive 'procelaw rule of incapacity is negated by the fact dural capacity of unincorporated associations, that the' procedural incapacity of a partner- to be dealt with separately (§ 24). ship may be waived by failure to object,41 or
a5. Warren, op. cit. supra note 3!!, at 009; infra note 40.

.~:tbe case of associations (§ 12), to invoke ..~mity ~ the foreign sovereign in order to ~gntze the '''existence'' of an alien or 'abindividual.1 'This is also true .in Euro~an countries, although it has been said that , :?in those countries "natural facts, and powers .elf human life are nothing to the iaw until the ',·"daw makes them so." 2, Nevertheless, there ·moe several situations in which "foreign" in~viduals have been denied active procedural . ,capacity. Where such denial is based on of law rules deferring to the individ:-;ua}'s "personal law," it will be dealt with in 1he Second Part. What requires discussion at this point is the forum's decision under its DWn law to recognize or deny a fOreign indi~dual's procedural capacity because of his :a>eing foreign, or acting by virtue of a foreign appointment.3

... '"

Limitations upon the alien's iegal and procedural capacity have virtu8Dy disappeared.· Free access to the courts has bE!come a usual object of treaty regula:tion; 6 and is recognized, in the absence of such regulation, as a precept of customary international law, G limited only by wartime restrictions upon enemy aliens. ' Even this limi~tion, except for nonresident aliens,8 "hassu.rvived only so far as necessary to prevent use of the courts to accomplish a purpose which mi~t hamper our own war efforts or give aid to the enemy." e This benevolent attitude is generally held reconcilable with the laws of many countries
4. See in general Graveson. Status In tbe Common Law (1953) 24: Gibson. Aliens ond tbe Law (1940) 144tf. ; Sromberg 170f.; Nussbaum 220. An un· lawful immigrant "'as beld not entitled to sue in Coules \'. Pharris. 212 Wis. 200 N.W. 404 (1033). But see Martinez T. Fox 'Valley Bus Lines, 1; F.Supp. 576, G7S (N.D.m.l936); Janusls· T. Long, 28i Mass. 403, 188 N.E. !!2S (1033): Uodney T. In· terboroultb Co., ,149 Mise. 2il, 20i N.~.S. 8G (1032). See also PavUck T. Meriden Trust &. Safety Deposit Co., 141 CoDn. 471, 10; .A.2d 262 (1004). Concern· ing the Convention relBtlnr: to tllC Statu!'! of Iteru~ees, securing to refugees "in matters pertalnin,: to access to the courts" "the same treatment" nil tbat ll'ranted to nationals, see Note, 0 lnt. & Comp.L.Q 533 (1057). See also Bayiteh. Aliens in Floridll. 1~ U.Mlaml L.ReT. 129 (1958); Domke, A.B.A. ProceedillltS, Scc.lnt.Comp.L. (195;-58) 23.








ConccrnlnJ!; busln~!> tn1t;t~. flee e. r:. ret~r~n T. lIopson, aoo Mass. rl!li. 20 N.E.:!d 140 (104<11: and in r:eneral Anno.. 100 A.L.It. 22, 219; infra I UiO. As to trusts, see intra 111:;0•.244.
Sec Comment, 42 Callf.L.Itc\·. SI:! (10;;4).


§ 18. The rights and, duties of individuals, like the rights and duties of associations, are Ucreated u by the laws of each state. But the need has never been felt, as it has in
42. 43.




J. OoDeernlng tbe "absenCe .,.of ~Mis'" In slaves, see 2 Beale. Comu~ :ut;~. "Olvll death", survlving'~n -:SOme .~tries I1Dd states of the Union' .will ,.geiier1Qjy:~~e;;;dlsre­ garded as penal. Panko· v. 'Endicnt~..:eorp., 24 F.Supp. 67S (D.C.N.Y.'f.938T.::81MkQ.'SJiawskltu Hayasbl T. Lorenz, 42 Cn1.2d582, 271P3d 20
(1954). ". • • the 'odlsquallftca~ultlng 1rom heresy, excommun,leatlou. ~@~"Mncy, infamy, and other penal dJsabllltt~rced in any other country. '. • ',:"~::-,, . _ . .see


,38. Se<' ill ~eO('rnl Comment. Unions Person!;, GO Yale L.J. 712 (10:;;).


39. Onc of the frw reDflOllf: ad\'anced for U1C incnpnclty rule is the defendant's rlj:ht to kno\\, the 1clentlty of hi!: opponcnt. Cndy \'. Smith. 12 Neb. 028, G30. 12 KW. 9:;. flO (]SS:!,\. Jf suit and execution nrc pennlsslblc n!rnln~t U11lneorporated associations (~ 241. thl!= nr~llment fnlli' <"'CII as to Imclt prnctlCtll ('onshJcrntloll~ a~ tbe reem'cry of rosts oJrnill!=t a losing plaintiff. Bm flee Cnse ,'. Kndota Fig A~­ soclntton, 35 Ca1.2d 5tlG, 603, 220 l).2d 012, 916 (1950).

See Anno., 124 A.L.R. SG. 131. Cnfle \'. Kadota Flj: A~c:·n. sa Cn1.2d 500. 220 P. 2d 0]2 nn:iO). S(>(' ~ot('R. 35 Callf.L.Rel'. 115 (]947); 39 Callf.L.Ue\·. 2<H (10~1); 3 Bronf.L.Re\'. 00 (lU50).

I 51 notes 73ft. Nor will account 'Jle:.taen ':or any

also 1 Rabel 1i4: Note, 6 ,U.Chl.LJtevA;288:(939); 5.


40. See e.~. Ala. Code (19aR) § 7-142; Conn.Oen.Stat. Ann. (1958) f 52-76: lUch.Comp.La,,·s (1948) § 612.12; N.J.ReT.Stnt.(1~l) tit. 2A. c. 64, § 1; N. 1:. Gen. Assoc. Lnw (19i2) fl ]2. 13 i Jl L Gcn. Laws (1950) § 9-2-11; Yn. Code Ann. (1950) § 8-00. See also Fed.R.CIT.Proc. li(b).

See e.g. Iron Molders' Union T. Allis-Chalmers Co•• 166 F. 45 (7th Clr.l90S); Spaulding Mfg. T. Godbold, 92 Ark. '63, 121 B.W. 1003 (1909). But ct. MlUer's Estate Y. Bt. Joseph County Home, 119 Ind. App. 43;, S; KE.2d SSG (lSH9); and in general Note, 20 Mlch.L.Rel'. 245 (1921).

S<'e e.~. Iinrtror<l Life Ins. Co. v. Ibs, 23i U.S. 662, S;; S.Ct. 092 (1915); infrn § 6-1. 45. Sec ('.It. Guilfoil T. Arthnr. 158 Ill. 600, 41 N.E. 1001'1 (]8!l:i1. But ~e n1.-0 },011l1 ,'. Leltcb, 3.J3 Ill. App. 02:!, 00 N.E.:!d 6..1\5 (1051). 46. Set> e.,:. Wolfe T. Limestone Council No. 3;3, 233 Pa. a., S2 A. 499 (1912). •• 47. Juneau Spruce Corp. T. Intenlational Lonltsboremen's & Wnrebousemen's Union, 3; Cal.2d 700, '229 P.2d 424 (19;)1). 48. See In ~eneral Stul1les. supra note 32, at 3901f.; Note, 41 Co1.L.ReT. 698 (10,41); and particularly, Uniform Partnersbip Act, I§ S, Ii, 28, 41, '1 U.LA. (1949, Supp.1960) 1 i infrn § 140. 49. See e. g. Lebman T. Napier, 101 F.Supp. 313 (D.C. lown 1951) (standing to be sued. Infrn § 24.) But see e.g. CnllOln ,'. Kugelman, 33 App.Dl\'. 428, 54 N.Y.S. 89 (lS9S). aft"d Buh nom. Cnsola Y. Vasquez, 164 N. 1:. 608, 58 N.E. 1085 (1900).


law depriving a religious of' his legal personality. See Graveson, Status in the Common Law (1053) 15; 00.Lltt. 133a (§ 2(0); 1 Armin Ebrenz\\,eig. System des asterrelchlschen allgemeinen Prl"atreehts (1001) I '10. But the answer mar be different concerning the status of "prodigality" (quaUty of being a spendthrift). See 2 Beale, Con diet of Laws (1935) 058; Oheshire 162. cr. In re Wen, Cour de Pnrls. 1'0\'. 9, 1931:i, 63 Clunet 803 (1030) (1II\'oh-lng a C8Ufornin .cltizen); infra § 13:i notes 23-28.

See e. r:. Domke. American·German Private La,,' IlclntloJ18 Case8 194~19;)a (]O~) 81 i Wllson. A~ CCAA·to-Court8 Pro\'llIion8 in t:. S. Commercia) Treaties, 47 Am.J.lnt.L. 20 (19:;3).



~ Beale, The Law of Capacity in International lIarrlages, 15 Barv.L.ReT. 382 (1902). But see e.g. ntezler 414ft.; Batiffol 4671f.
J. On tbe status of "merchant" in the law of confilet of laws, see Batlffol, 2 Travaux (1935) 133. 'l'his problem may yet assume interstate importaDce in view of· the adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code in some states. American Law ~nst1tute, Uniform Commercial Code (195i) Sec. 2104(1). For a history of the concept, see Graveson, Status in the Common Lew (1958) 30. See also infra 1185 notes 23-28.

6. _The Court of Claims is a"ollablc to aJlens on COil" dltloll of reciprocity. 2S U.S.C.A. § 2502. Cf. National City Bank Y. Republic of China. 34S U.l';, 3uG, 303. 7G S.Ct. 423, 428 (19M): United StateR ". United Statcs F. & G. Co., 300 U.S. 500, 00 S Ct. GG3 (1940); Morse, Tbe Jurifldlctlon of the: Court ot Cla.lms and Claims of InternatioDal lJr, port, [195'1) WIs.L.Rev. 222. 244 (lOu;). See Infr. f 31. For a case involving tbe similar PubJJc \' etsels Act, see Mancini v. United States, 103 F.Supr~ 68D (E.D.N.~.19~).



7. Domke, op. cit. supra note 5. 'See also Fridma~ Enemy Status, 4 Int. & Comp.L.Q.' 613 (19M); NOll' 100 U.Pa.L.Re\'. 1054 (1958).

Jobnson \'. Elsentrager, 339 U.S. '103, '176. '1(1 .' Ct. 93G,942 (1950); Ex parte ColoDna, 814 U.S. fiJI 62 S.Ct. 373 (1942).

8. Ex parte Kawato, 317 U.S. 69, '15, 63 S.Ot. 11: lIS (19~). See infra 118 Dote 8.





Cb. 1

§ 13



which require the alien plaintiff to post se- ried woman's domicile. IS But here, as in curity prior to being admitted to the court. other related fields, the forum may distinThis practice seems reasonable under the guish between active and passive capacity.IS laws of those countries which impose upon While as to foreign corporations the law in the losing party the duty to reimburse the some respects seems to favor standing to be prevailing party for all or part of the counsel sued over that to sue (§ 24), general judicial fees incurred by him,IO and thus usually im- attitudes favoring minors and incompetent pose the duty to post security upon all non- persons, may prompt the opposite result as residents, both aliens and citizens.l l But not- to them. Thus, suits by minors upon foreign withstanding the non-applicability of this judgments in their favor have repeatedly rationale in this country, most states, appar- been permitted, 17 while such judgments ently in view of other imposable costs, have against them are more likely to be held enacted similar security requirements as to void. IS And the Supreme Court has declared aliens. 1= Conflicts problems arising in this invalid service upon an incompetent even in respect will have to be solved by treaty, as the case of in rem jurisdiction. 19 Similarly, will those concerning the grant to aliens of the minors standing is perhaps more likely to privileges in forma pauperis. 13 be dealt with under the lex fori if this law is advantageous to him. Thus, it has been held that a Louisiana. minor was properly repre.. b. MINoRS, MARRIED WOMEN, INCOMPEsented in Mississippi by her mother as her TENT PERSONS AND GUARDIANS "next friend" under the common law rule of Insofar as the standing of nonresident per- the forum, although Louisiana may require sons claimed to be incompetent depends upon special permission of the court appointing the recognition accorded to the apPointment her as a tutrix.::o of their guardians, it will be discussed in that are, however. met connection (§ 51). The proced~al· capacity 15. Both ndessecurity of domestic: by Increasing con. cern for the trnnsactions. See of minors and married women may involve a Union Tnlst 00. v. Grosman, 2~5 U.S. 412. 38 S.Ct. 141 (lOI8); slIpra § 6 a.t note 20. Concerning the choice of law and, will in this respect be dealt choice between the laws of the place ot accident with more fully in the Second Part of this (and fonlm 1) and of the domicile, compat'8 MlUer v. Ashton, 155 F.Snpp. 411 lIdaho 105;) (accldent and treatise. This choice of law will usually forum), roitla. Bruton v. Vllloria, 138 Cal.App.2d refer to the law of the minor's 1'& or mar642, 29'2 P.2d 638 (1056) (domicile). See also TeDs
10. See Infrn § 125 notes 2-1-20.

As to the procedural capacity of guardians, doctrinary preference for dogmatic neatness has resulted in ~ over-simplification of conflicts precepts.n ·This has caused much difficulty to the courts, particularly in custody cases, to be dealt with separately ( § 87) • Hornbook law now has it that both the active and passive procedural capacity of guardians (as to rights in land and personal property, as to guardiaDs of the person and of the property, and as to minors and incompetent persons), are governed by the same rules as those governing the capacity of personal representatives (§ § 14 f.). These rules presumably deny recognition on the basic theory that appointment by another sovereign has no "extraterritorial effect.":: Contrary to much language to this effect in writings as well as judicial opinions, the application of this theory to foreign-appointed guardians probably has never been the law, and should not be the law, in view of the fundamental difference between the functions of the two types of appointees.23 , :
As will be seen presently, the legal position of the personal representative is largely determined by the reluctance of Anglo-American law to treat him as the decedent's successor and by the peculiarity of his function in the distribution of the estate. The theory of his ''nonexistence'' outside the appointing state is supported by the forum's concern for local interests in local assets. No such problem exists concerning the foreign guardian, either of the ward's person or his property. Concerning the ward's person the guardian's position is exactly the same as that of the ward's father; and as to the ward's estate, the guardian's function resembles closely that of a trustee. Neither
BODner v. Ogilvie, 58 S.W. 1021 (Tex.C1v.App.1900); Henderson V. Shell 011 Co., 170 S.W.2d 386 (Tax.Clv. APp.l944).

the father nor the trustee has ever been denied "recognition" in other states. And, indeed, prior to dogmatic distortion, such denial as to guardians does not seem, to have been deduced from their similarity to personal representatives. Analysis of the present law must avoid over-generalization and must therefore be related to the many historical facets of the problem. Guardianship of the ward's person will be discussed in connection with children's custody (§ 87) and declarations of incompetency (§ 51). The rights and duties of foreign guardians as to land have always been jealously reserved to the law and the courts of the situs,e, and have, therefore, ~o far at least, failed to offer problems of conflict of laws. What remains to be discussed is the foreign guardian's position as to personalty. There seems to have been little doubt originally as to the foreign guardian's standing to sue in cases relating to forum personalty.u Story, nevertheless, felt compelled to disapprove earlier English authority to this effect,:!s and to announce the "strictly local'r character of the "rights and powers of guardians." This is apparently due to his analyti· cal proposition that these rights and powers are based "upon the same reasoning and policy, which has circumscribed the rights and authorities of executors and administrators." n
24. Storr 41411'.; Goodrich mo. See also infra § 11 note 01; § 30; § G2 note 16; I 58 notes 2ft. But see Redditt v. Hale, IS! F.2d 443 (8th Clr. 1050).
25. As to the guardian's right to sue in his' own nrune, see in general .atkinson, The Real Party, tn Interest R\1le: A Plea for its Abolltlon, 32 ~.Y.U.L. Rev. 926, 054 (lD5i). referring to the scanty litera· ture on this "much neglected" subject (at 056). See alsO Tarlor, Law of Guardian and Want (1935); Paulsen and Best, Appointment of a Guardian In the Conflict of Laws, 45 Iowa L.Rev. 212 (1960).

& Pac. Rr. Co. v. Bumble, 181 U.S. 51, 21 S.Ct. 528 (1001); Anno., aa A.L.R.2d 1100, 1221: infra. I 118 notes 10ft.


Rlezler 42Bff. Domke, OPe elt. supra Dote 5, at Sot


16. But see Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, making the lex fori appllcable In both cases. Cf. Fnllat v. Gournn, 220 F.2d 325 (3d Olr.

13. Ibid. See Rlezler 440ff; BarUch, supra note 4. at 141. Dismissal of the complaint with prejudice because of llon-compliance with dlscoverr orders under Federal Rule 34 mar constitute denlnl ot due process, where compliance Is prohibited br a foreign law. Soci~te Internationale pour Participations In· dustrlelles et Commercia.les. S.A. v. Brownell, 351 U.S. 191, 78 S.Ct. 1081 (1958). On the nftermath of this case before the International Court of Justice. see Simmonds, The Interhandel Case. 10 Int. &: Comp.L.Q. 4113 (1061).


17. See e. g. Rlddle v. Barksdale, 194 Va. 166, 15 S.E.2d 501 (ID53); Maager v. Hore. 122 F.Supp. 032 (E.D.N.C.I054).

18. See e. g. Cape Charles Firing Service v. Nottlng· ham. 181 Va. 444,' 011 S.E.2d 540 (1948) (domestic

19. CoveY. Committee v. Somers, 351 U.S. 141, i6 S.Ct. i24 (1056). But see Johnson v. First Nat. Bank. 223 F.2d 31 (10th Cir. 1(35).
20. O. J. Peck Oil Co. v. Diamond, 204 F.2d 179 (5th Clr. 1053). The holding Is not conclusive Since the court also relied upon the forum wrongful death statute as that of the place of inj111'1. See alsO

21. See'ln general Comment, 49 CoLL.Rev. 104 (1049). 22. Goodrich 579.

14. See e. g. Petition ot Altman. 138 N.Y.S.2d 336 (Surr.19M) (Israel); Goodrich 10ff. But ct. In re Fnlello's Estate, 151 N.Y.S.2d 1015 (Surr.l950). See also infra § li8 notes 26ft.

26. Morrison's Case, stated in sm V. Worsick, 1 H.BL 665, 671, 126 Eng.Rep. 379. 380 (1191). For modem Engllsh law, see Graveson 19Off.; Oheshire 451. .

23. Conant v. Kendall, 21 PIck. (38 Mass.) 36 (1838).

Storr 414.




§ 14

A\.iJ.·l v.r.; \.iAr A.v.........

·A1though Story himself was not able to ad. duce judicial support for this proposition,fi his theory has been adopted at least in the language of most later courts and writers without renewed analysis of the underlying rationale.29 Although the Supreme Court itself has approved the analogy,SO it has also conceded that lithe tendency of modern statutes and decisions is to defer to the law of the domicil, and to support the authority of the guardian appointed there." 31


-(1) The Rule, Its History and -Rationale

§ 14. ~ the absence of a statute pennitting it, a foreign administrator cannot sue to recover a claim belonging to the decedent," because "the administrator is not himself the creditor, and can sue only as he is empowered to do by law." 1 This p~position, which in general is considered as one "going to the jurisdiction" and thus not subject to waiver, is now generally accepted as a correct state-To be sure, the ward has a very real interment of the law, as to both administrators est in the security of his local assets and the and executors.! But it has been widely atforum may see greater security in a domestic guardianship. But it may be expected that I. nest. § 507; Id. eomment a. legislative, if not judicial, reform will see fit 2. For some receDt eases adhering to tbe ortbodox rule by bolding or dictum, see e. g. Noel V. st. Jobnsto safeguard this interest without resort to bun' Trucking Co., 147 F.Supp. 432 (D.C.Conn.1956) ; Jones ". Turner, 249 Mlell. 403, 228 N.W. 79B (1930) the discredited doctrine of the guardian's [but d. Howard T. Pul\'er, 329 Mich. 41'3, 45 N.W.2d "non-existence" in.the forum state, by simply 580 (lool)] ;c·McKeen T. Union Pac. n. Co., 111 F. Supp. 816 (W.D.Mo.l93S) [but see McElroy T. Wlellrequiring the foreign appointed guardian to ita Forwnrding Co.. 3G4 )10. 458. 263 S.W.2d 17 (lg-~), inconclusive because of domestie appointpost a bond.3%
28. 8tor~ 414 cites Morrell T. Dicker, 1 Johns.Ch. 15.'\ (N.Y.1814); Krnft ,'. Wickey, 4 Gm & Johns. 332 (Md.1832). UOtb cases in"oh'cd foreign gUllr,)ians acting as administrntors.


29. Bucllelc T. Trueklng, Inc., 5i F.Supp. !'1M (E,D. ltliell.l944); DnnlPtt ,'. Equitable Tnlst Co., 34 F.2d 917, 919 (2cJ Cir.l929), per L. Iinnd, J.; Grist T. Foreband, 3G MillS. lID (1&)8); Smith \'. Madden. Si F. 838 (N.D.Ohio 1800); State e~ reI. !\lnrtin ,'. Hancock Circuit Court, 232 lnd. 322, 112 KE.2d 578 (191)3).

Morgan v. Potter, 15i U.S. 19:), 15 S.Ct. 590


31. Lamar T. Mlcou, 112 U.s. 452,470, fi S.et. 221, 229 (1884). The foreilID guardian's right to Tote stock

owned by the ward's estate now seems to be beyond question. Beverlr Beach Properties \'. Nelson, 68 So.2d 604 (Fla.l9""a3), cert. den. sub. nom. Rensta V. Beverly Beach Properties, Inc., 348 U.S. 816, 75 S. Ct. 27 (19M). See also Gow v. Consolidated Coppermines Corp., 19 DeLCb. 172, 165 A. 186 (1933); 41 A.L.n.2d 1082 (1955); infra I 15 note 4. See also Hemphill \'. Hemphill, 310 S.W.2d 582 (Mo.l9M) (action to avoid divorce). 32. See e. g. Kraft v. Wickey, supra note 28, at 341; lolorrell T. Dickey, supra note 28, at 156; Grist T. Foreband, supra note 29; and generally Paulsen and Best, Appointment of 8 Guardian In the Confilet of Laws, 45 Iowa L.Rev. 212, 230-232 (1960):

ment]; WUcox T. Dlst. Court, 2 Utnll 2d 227, 272 P. 2d 157 (1954) (relying on the Restatement and on New York and California cases lon~ obsolete); Go~an ,'. Jones. 10; Tenn. 430, 273 S. W.2d 700 (1954); Citizens Fidelity BankT. Baese, 186 F.Supp. 683, 084 (M.D.Tenn.l005); Felchlin T. American SmeltIn~ and Refinin~ Co., 136 F.Supp. Ui'i (S.D.Ca1.l95G) (Texas laW); Baldwin T. Powell, 294 N.Y. 130, 61 N.E.2d 412 (1945); Cannon T. Connon, 228 N.C. 211, 45 S.E.1d 3.J (1947). See also 'McDowell. Foreign Personnl Bepresentati\'efl (1957) 31; Goodrich 550; Anno.. 52 A.L.R.2d 1010. A stntute mnr expressl,. prohibit a foreign representath'e from "nctlng" as suell within the stote. See as to W.Va. law to this effect, Rybolt \'. Jarrett, 112 F.2d 642. 648 (4th Cir. 1940). As to Va. law now modelled upon the W. Va. statute. Holt T. Middlebrook, 214 F.2d lSi (4th elr. 1954); McDaniel T. Nortb Carolina Pulp Co., 198 Va. 612, 95 S.E.2d 201 (1956); Kaufmann T. Service Trucking Co., 139 F. Supp. 1 (D.C.Mc1.l956) (not applied in third state thougb accident happened in Virginia). As to otber laws see Barnes T. Union Pac. R. Co., 139 F.Supp. 198 (D.C.Idaho 1956); King T. Cooper Motor Lines, Inc., 142 F.Supp. 405 (D.C.Md.l956) (N.C. law); Citizens Fidelit3' Bank & Trust Co. T. Baese, 136 F. Supp. 6&'3, 686 (lLD.Tenn.l955). See also Cal.Code Civ.Proc. § 1913; Comment, 54 Micb.L.Bet'. 821 (1956); Anno., 52 A.L.R.2d 1048. For a federnl court to escape the impact of sueb statutes by reliance on full falth and credit to "Public acts'" is open to all obj~ons to this approach. Supra I 9. But see Olewiler T. Fullerton SupplY Co., 162 F.Supp. 063 (D.c.Md.l958).

1;ackedas unfortunate where causing tmnec- state estabUshing his succession.'I Recogniexpense and complexity in the admin- tion of this fact should induce American istration of decedents' estates.S Since at- courts ordinarily to grant the .foreign heir .·-tempts at solving the problem by uniform leg- standing to sue.s Unfortunately, however, islation 'seem to have little prospect of suc- even some of those states which have abolcess, reform will probably have to come from ished the exclusionary ~e as to representathe courts. Such judicial reform· will have tives appointed in ~r ~tates (§ 15), seem 10 be based upon an historical and functional inclined to deny procedural capacity to for.analysis of the rule as well as of its excep- eign civil law heirs,9: though they might, equally inconsistently,: concede procedural tions. In countries recognizing the principle of capacity to civil blw executors who under 10 The civil "'universal succession" as to both real and their own law do not hold title. -personal property, the problem of the suc- law institution of the curator absentis which -cesser's recognition cannot arise. The is part of the laws of at least four states of "heir", testamentary or intestate, acquires ti- the Union, would seem to deserve increased l l [The recognition of foreign pro. tIe to the decedent's entire assets wherever attention. bate decrees will be discussed below (§ 50) J. located, as of the latter's death, though deliv:.1>:. Early English law !mew only the testaery of possession may °be delayed by proceed~. "'iF.' 'Jngs .designed primarily to secure the pay- mentary executor.u As long as the bish· of inheritance taxes. G And since this ..'For annlysis of the difficulties in this heir is, on principle,G liable out of his own 7. respectnnby the dlve~ence betweenC!l'e8.tedcommon the .-1 .. aDd civll law in cases inl"olving countries from OOtll property .for all the decedent's debts, there . .. .has never existed a reason why he should not orbits, see Raape 418tf.• discussing both the trentment of American administrators and executors In be permitted to sue or be sued outside the Germany, and that of German beirs In this couna,-.



Whetber the foreign ap)'lOinted admlnistrntor's dom· Idle Is outside or within the forum statc. does not seem to affect the resulL Be e. g. Hopper ,'. Hopper, l23 N.Y. 400, 20 N.E. 4ti7 (1891); Continental Bank & Trust Co. \'. Scotcl1 Presbyterian Church, 64 N.'I:.S. 2d 27 (1940).






·30 See e. g., Goodrlell rroo: Cheatham, The Statutory Successor, the lleceiver and the Executor in the Conflict of Laws, 44 Co1.L.ReT'. 540 (1054); Scoles, Conflict of Laws and Creditors' Ri~hts in Deeedents' Estates. 42 Iowa L.ReT. 341 (1957). Concerning "Estate Administration an() the Conflict of Laws," Comment, 85 Va.L.ReT'. 310 (1949); in general McDowell, OPt cit. supra note 2, at 170Jr. 4. See Atkinson, The Unifonn Ancl1lary Administration and Probate Acts, 67 HarT.L.Bet'. 619 (1054); -9 UL.A. 58 (1957) (adopted In Wisconsin); 9B U.L.A. 388 (1957) (adopted In Texas aDd Wisconsin). '5. llbelnstein, European Methods for the Liquidation of tbe Debts of Deceased Persons, 20 Iowa L.Rev. 431 (1935); Wormser aDd Burchard, Administration of German Decedents' Estates, 8S U.Pa.L.ReT. 87 Cl935). As to LoulsJaDa law, see Comment, 2i Tol L.BeT. 87 (1952). See also McDowell, op. cit. supra DOte 2, at 8; 4 Rabel 426-428: JDfra § 246 note 246. .As to the beneflcium inventarll by tbe use of wbieb the beir may limit his llabUlty at considerable expense and Inconvenience, see Bhelnstein, suPra note 5, at 436. Ct. In re Van Bokkelen's l!Astate, 169 MJsc. 224, 7 N.'I:.S.2d 48 (Surr.lOSS).

Tbis conflict seems always to have been rotiler troublesome. See Greenway q.nd ~·Barker's Casco GOdb. 260, 261, 78 Eng.ltep. 151, IG2 (1613) ("those beyond the sens did not toke any cognisance ot the word czccutor,"). 8. See e. g. Du lloure T. Alvord, 120 F.Supp. 166 (S.D. N.'I:.I(54); Vanquelln T. Bouard. 15 C.B. (N.S .• 341 (C.1'. 18(3) (France); Anglo CoUfornln Nat. Dank T. Laznrd, 100 F.2d 693 (Oth Clr. 1039); Sultno of Turkey T. Tiryaklan, 213 N.l:. 429. lOS N.E. 72 (191Zi) (Turkey); In re Nordbauser's Estate. 197 Misc. l1U, 94 N.Y.S.2d 48 (1950); III re Zietz Estates, 207 Misc. 22, 135 N.'I:.S.2d 5.3, 579 (1954), oO"d 2&i App.Dh·. 1147, 143 N.'I:.S.2d 602 (1005), nff'd 1 N.Y.2d 7480 15:! N.Y.S.2d 29~, 185 N.E.2d 49 (1956) (Germany).

9. See e. g. In re Prevost's Estate, 138 N.Y.S.2d S2S
(Surr.lD5fi) (in,·ol\'lng. bowever, competition with n domestic ancl11nry administrator); Emmerich ,'. Mol', 130 F.Supp. 426 (S.D.N.'I:.l95a). 10. See e. ~. callwood \'. Virgin Islands Nat. Bonk. 221 F.2d 770, 778 (3d Clr. 1955) i In re Patenotre'f Estate, 128 N.'I:.S.2d 492 (Surr.1953).

See e. g. In re Lestis' Estate, 2 Utah 2d 160. 270 P.2d 9n (1954); Parker T. Tlllman, 22S La. 214, 81 So.2d 866 (1953); infra § 26 note 33.

12. By the :u5th or 16th century this executor boo become comparable to tbe civil law beir (supra nore 5) both as to the time of vesting.title aDd as to hilillabllttr. 3 Holdsworth, A History of English Ls" (3d ed. 1927) 563, 574, 58S; Holmes, Executors. I' Harv.L.Bev. 42 (1895); Atkinson, Brief History 0:



THE PARTIES BEFORE THE COURT ' " Ch. 1 op took possession and title of any assets well be that the English con1flcts rule which left intestate or without appointment of an thus limits the administrator's right terri. executor,13 there was of course no need, and torially, has much to do with this history.19 for that matter no room, for an administra. But because of this peCuliarly English his. tor. It was not until the bishop was subject. tory of the "common law rule," it seems highed to suit for the decedent's debts 14 and be. ly questionable whether this rule can became entitled to sue on his behalf,u that the justly called part of the American legal tradi. office of administrator was ''really originat. tion.'o As earJy as 1803, the argument was. edIt 16 as that of an "executor dativus," who made before the Supreme Court that the represented the deceased rather than the American administrator ought not to be bishop. The different history of administrators and executors may accolUlt for the pe. treated in the same manner as the bishop's culiarity, re-established by the Supreme agent, since in contrast to the latter he was Court in 1851, that "the executor's interest ''the representative of the intestate." 21 Peris what the testator gives him haps for this reason several colOnies, in 1648, (while] . . . that of an administrator is ratified the recommendations of the commisonly that which the law of his appointment sioners appointed by the confederation of enjoins." 11 Thus, judgments recovered for 1643, and provided for the mutual recognition or against an executor in one state may in of appointments: "If any lmown planter or other states be treated in a manner deviat- settled inhabitant die intestate, administra. ing from the general principle of nonprivity tion be granted by the colony to which the between representatives (§ 64). deceased belonged, though he died in another The fact that the administrator was orig- colony; and the administration being duly inally the bishop's agent rather than the rep- certified, to be of force fQr ~thering the esresentative of the- deceased, may in part at least accolUlt for tlle fact that the administra- 19. Buebanan nnd llyers, The Admfnlstrntion of Intan~bles in view of First National Bank v. Maine, tor's jurisdiction was limited to that of the -18 Harv.L.Rev. 011 (1035). For present English law. bishop. For, ''Properly the whole interest see Graveson 41Otr.; Cheshire 548ft'. For an early case permitting an administrator appointed by the and power, which·were granted to the ordi. Bisbop of Cork. to sue in England. see Carter and nary, were only those of being the king's al. Crost's Case. Godb. 33. 78 Eng..Rep. 21 (1585) (action, moner within his' diocese." 18 And it may however. "of bIs J)OSSesSion without Shewing the letters"). But see· AWson v. DIckenson,. Hardres
Engllsh Testamentary Jurisdiction, 8 Mo.L.Rev. lOT (1043).


§ 14



tate for the rest of the colonies."1S This prac. "monstrous" results "in direct hostility to the tice was adhered to by the neighboring gov. interests" of other states.2&- Secondly, it had ernments of Ne~ Hampshire and Connecticut gradually become usual to provide for the which "uniformlY admitted executors and ad. appointment of ancillary administrators in ministrators, deriving their authority under states other than those of the decedent's any of the New England governments, to domicile and thus to create a competition beprosecute and defend in personal actions."!3 tween administrators unknown to earlier Indeed, even in the absence of statutory law English and American laW.2\) Thirdly, quick.. to this effect,2' it was ''uniformly understood ly spreadin~ wrongful death statutes may both before and since the revolution that have communicated the persisting hostility letters of administration granted in a sister against such statutes to the administrator state (were] a sufficient authority to main· attempting to bring suit under them outside tain an action . without regard to the state of his appointment.30 And finally, the particular intestate laws of the state courts which had become reluctant to grant where they have been granted."23 English administrators the privileges hither· At the beginning of the nineteenth century to given to administrators appointed in sister even those courts which, in the absence of states,31 insisted upon giving equal treatment express statutory support, felt unable to fol· to all foreign laws, in accordance with the low the statutory and judicial trend towards growing tendency to apply to both interna.. full recognition of the foreign administrator, tional and interstate conflicts civil and natumay ha~e considered this trend very con- ral law principles of private international venient.:s But for at least four reasons a law (§ 6). counter trend seems to have cast early doubt upon this attitude. In the first place, an in· creasing number of states" had given pref· erence to domestic creditors by the enact· ment of statutes which, in the hands of administrators of such states, could lead to

22. Quoted In Goodwin v. Jones, 3 lIasa. 5l3, 514

This last tendency was prominently pr0moted by Joseph Story. While stressing practical reasons requiring a revision of the older liberal practice, he added his own a priori argument, borrowed from the civilians, that utitle cannot de jure extend, as a matter of right, beyond the territory of the governmen~ which grants it." 31 It is this postulate
2& ibid.


Holdsworth. OPe cit. supra note 12, at 535, 561. See nlso Rltc:hJe. The Ec:c:Ieslastic:al Courts of York 13 Edw.


r. st. 1, Co 19 (1285).

216, 146 Eog.Bep. 460 (1661) (" • • • admlnla. tl"ation granted in one province. Is void as to goods In another. because they are two distinct supreme jurisdlctions") : Burston v. Ridley, 1 Salk. 39 91 Eng.Rep. 40 (1102) (01. • • neither archbishop'has to do-in the other's province',}.

23. Ibid.
24. See e. g. Act of Jan. 12. 1106 (2 Pa.Stat. 104), repealed by Act of ~(o.rch 15, 1832. P.L. 133. § 6.

15. 31 Edw. III. st. I,

vm. Co :) (1529).

U (1357). See also 21 Hen l'7


Holdsworth. op. eft. supra note 12, at 538.

Hill v. Tucker, 13 Ho~. (M U.S.) 458. 465 (1851). 18. 2 Blackstone. Commentaries (1166) 494. But see the argument of Rodes. J., In Carter and Orost's Case. Godb. 33, 18 Eng.Rep. 21 (1fS85) that a foreign administrator should be- permitted to sue because as to "acts done- In' Splrituall Courts in forrain places. as at Rome;: or elsewhere. the I8.w saith. that a jnry may take notice of them; because such Courts, and the Sp1r1tuall Courts here. make but one Court." 17.

Cheatham. The Statutory Successor, the Receiver and the Executor in CondJc:t of Laws, 44 CoLL.Rev. 549 (1944); Hopkins. CondJct of Laws In Administration of Decedents' Intangibles. 28 Iowa L.Rev. 422, 428 (1043); Buchanan and Myers. supra note 19: Rest. § 512,. comment a; Comments. 50 CoLL. Rev. 518 (1950); 56 CoLL.Rev. 915 (lOGS): 52 Mlc:h. L.Rev. 144. 141 (1953); 15 U.Ch1.L.Rev. 401. 452

ltc:Cu1lough v. Younsr. 1 BinD. (Pa.) 63, 64 (1803). See also Nlchole v. Mumford, KIrby 210 (Conn.1187) ("immemOrial nsage''). Although departlug from this practice 21 years later [RUey v. RUey, a Day 14 (Con0.1808)], [perhaps because of the fallure of the Connecticut legiBlnture to follow legislative precedent (supra DOte 24), see, tn general, Rli:!senteld~ Law-Making and Legislative Prec:edent in American Legal HIstory, 33 Mlnn.L.Bev. 103 (l949)L the Connecticut court subsequentiy recommended restoration of that prac:tfce by a federal act or state com. pact. Slocum v. Sanford, 2 Conn. 533, 53iS (1818).

29. See e. g. the nrgoment In Stevens v. Gaylord, 9 Mass. 255. 239 (1814). asserting that it was not unW Goodwin v. James, supra note 22, and Its statutory sequel, that admlnlstrators appointed in. other states were- prohibited from suing.

3ct· See- Minor. Conflict of Laws (1901) 23811".
31. Cf. Story. J •• In Trecothlck v. AUstin, Fed.Cas.No. 14.164 (O.Ct.D.Mass.1825), at 111; Graeme v. Harris, 1 Dall. 456 (Pa.l189) (letters granted by Mehblshop of York), distinguished on that ground In McCol· lougb v. Yonog, 1 Blnn. (Pa.) 63. (1803). A c:ertaln

21. Fenwick v. Sears's Adm'rs, 1 Cranch (IS U.S.) 259. 214 (1803). The Supreme Court rejected this argu_ ment and thus. established the precedent most often cited for the allegedly anefent role. But the casecould well be explained on other- gronods. See infra at note 26.

28. See Fenwick 'T. Sears's Adm'r8; 1 Crnnc:h (IS U.S.) 259. 215 (1803); See also supra note 21.

See e. g. McCullough v. Young, supra note 25 (Del_. aware statute)•.

skeptic:lSm met even in sister states by state appointed omears may have contributed to a gradual abandooment of the' old comity role. See Fenwick v. Sears's Adm·rs. supra note 26, Involving a Maryland "register of wWs."
3%.. Story 42l.



Cit. 1



stated by Story 33 and Kent,~ that apparently underlies our current hornbOOk law. But this postulate is not suppoJ1:ed by the case law relied upon.SG It is a matter of speculation whether Story and Kent borrowed their legalistic reasoning from the similar corporation doctrine prevailing at this time (§ 12). Whether or not this was the case, this reason.mg, which has long been found wanting in relation to corporations, is equally untenable in this field: To call a foreign administrator a "legal person" who is a mere "creature" of the state of his "creation," is as meaningful, or meaningless, as such a statement would be as to any other individual treated as a "person" for legal purposes U 13). Continued respect for the exclusionary rule has, therefore, been compelled to rely on grounds of practical expediency. Following earlier rationalizations of the rule, Story had also argued that ',t would be a great hardship upon. . creditors to allow a foreign executor or administrator to withdraw. . funds, without the payment of such debts, and thus to leave the creditors to seek their remedy in the domicil of the foreign executor or administrator, and perhaps there meet with obstructions and in-

equalities in the enforcement of their own rights from the. peculiarities of the local laws." 36 Whatever the justification for such fears at Story's time," this reasoning ceased to be conclusive at the latest when the Su.preme Court declared unconstitutional statutes discriminating against foreign creditors. 38 The time may have come for the reexamination of what is increasingly felt to be an obsolete rule,39 particularly in view of the near-chaos created by a fast growing number of exceptions.
(2) Exceptions

§ '15. In order to escape the incapacity rule found devoid of any historical, analytical, comparative or practical justification (§ 14), and to promote the aim of a unitarY, speedy and inexpensive administration, Courts have used various techniques. Thus, they have permitted the administrator to sue in a personal rather than representative capacity,.as}or instance where he is said to act as a trustee. Or they have found a new cause of action accrued after the decedent's death, or a new "title" acquired by the administrator himself. Other devices following the same approach concern the validity 33. Trerothlck T. A11!~tin. 4 lfn~n 1(' :t!.24 Fed.Cns. of acts transacted by or with the administra.. 10;). IiI CMnfOls.lS'>JJI Icllrtmll. the adlnlnistrator beld tor outside the state of his appointment. entitled to sue on other ~rol111d). Such acts include voluntary payment to him
34. ~Iorrell T. Dickey, 1 John!=. 153. 1:"; 0\.Y.18].J); Wnliams T. Storrs, G Jobns. 353. 3cJ, (:\.1:.1822).

The best evidence for this development, tOf debts owing to the decedent; 1 the ac.,quisition I or sale 3 of property of the estate; however, is what hasbeen found to be th~, ic>r the exercise of a proxy right.· All these majority view which permits administrators ·~·exceptions" seem illustrative of the gradual to circumvent their procedural incapacity by :- ".breakdown of the incapacity theory. So assigning their claim to one not hampered ··.·does the apparently general praetice (to be by incapacity.6 This view assumes that ..the .. dealt ·with below) to treat.failure to object to disability to sue does ~ot attach to the sub· ject of the action, but is confined to the per~tbe foreign administrator's capacity as re1RJlting in a waiver of this objection. For son of the plaintiff. If he is an unexception· he is to be re.this practice clearly concedes the "nonjuris- able suitor This "exception" has been con,;dictional" nature of this question. The same ceived.'" -:-concession may be found in those cases ceded I·practical desirabilitY" even by those ~hich accord full faith and credit to a judg- who consider it "logically" unsound. 8 It will be recognized as "logical" once the gen~ent for or against foreign' administrators eral rule is discarded as lacking logic itself. Jacking standing to sue.Ii --... Other exceptions, to be dealt with present· I. Such payments are vaUd if the debtor did not know of the appointment of a local administrator. ly, concern the administrator's own suits 555: Rest. ~ Jteneral McDo. w.; - Goodrich cit. supra § 14482. Seentin luI fr.; Bucha- based on his transactions. in contract or tort, well, op. note 2, Dan and Myers, The Administration of IntaD~bles as a holder in due course, as a trustee (par· etc., 48 BarT.L.Re,·. 911. 936 (1035); Bopklns, Con- ticu1arly in wrongful death cases), and un·1Uct of Laws lD Administration of Decedents' Intangibles. 28 Iowa L.ReT. 422, 485 (1943); Beale. Vol- der a general authority derived from statute . untary Payment to n FOreilm Administrator 42 or cOmity.



Barv.L.Re\,. 597 n929); Mersch. Voluntary Pav~ent ·to Foreign Administrator, 18 Geo.L.J. 130 (929); Note. 4 CaUf.L.ReT. 400 (1916). Dlustrntive of oontlnuing dlfHculties iR Wolfe \'. Bank of Anderson, 123 S.C. 208, 116 S.E. 4;;1 (1923). For a modern statute. see Callf.Stats.1057. c. 563. Prob.Code § 1043. Bee also generally Stimson, Conflict of Laws and the · Administration ot Dccedent.c:' Personnl Propertr. 40 Va.L.ReT. 1345, 1360-1364 n960). 2. For an analysiS of conflicting TieU's, see Goodrich 551tr. As to renl estnte. see Stimson, Contllct of Laws and the Administration ot Decedents' Real Estate. 6 Vand.LRe\'. 045 (1953): as to leaseholds, · Note, 64 BarT.L.lte\'. 669 (1951).
3. See e.. g. Valle,. Nat. Bank T. Siebrand 74 Ariz. M, 243 P.2d 771 (1002); McDowell. op. cit. supra § 14 note 2, at 12:) ff.

'Party to transaetion. . Where an adminis· trator recovers a judgment in the state of his appointment and then ·attempts to collect thereon in the forum state, denial of his capacity in the latter would cause serious practical difficulties. For, as was recognized early, such denial would free the debtor, who could not be sued on the judgment by either the foreign administrator, or, in the absence of privity between administrators (§ 64), by
Buchannn and Myers. The Administration of In. tangibles etc.. 48 HafT.L.Re\'. 911, 924 (1035). Hopkiu!), Conflict of Laws in Administration of liM'edents' Intan~lbles, 28 lown I...Ite\,. 422. 443 (1!J.J3), finds the authorities "somewhat contradictory" as to the circumstances required for the validity of the assignment. See Infra note 19; § 16 note 22. 7. Petersen T. Chemical BllDk. 82 N.Y. 21. 46 (]8G5). following Barper T. Butler. 2 Pet. (27 U.S.. :?3!. (1829). See also Rest. § 480. ·Assignment for C(lj. lectlon only may be treated differently. Riddle ,. Slack, 00 N.J.L. 412, 11u A. 741 (1921): Tbacker ". Lindahl, 48 S.W.2d 588 (Tex.Com.App. 1932); McDOWell, op. cit. supra § 14 note 2, at 03 fT. 8. Go,?drlch 559. See also 3 Beale, Con1Uct of LaW! (1035) 1512; id., Voluntary Payment to a Foreign Administrator. 42 BarT.L.Re\,. 697 (1029). But sec' Coburn T. Dyke, 103 N.H. 150, 167 A.2d 223 (1001). per Kenison, Cb.J .. citIDg this treatise.

Cbancellor Kent. in his decisions. supra note 34, reUes on only three American nnthoritief:: (1) IUley T. RUey, 3 Day Ul'p. 74 K·.()nll.1~S). "'hleb ",os contrary to nll "Immemol'ial" prnctlce (supra note 2a); (2) Fenwick T. Sears's Adm'rs. 1 Crancb (li U.S.) 239 (1803). which in Goodwin T. Jones. 3 )lass. 513. 516 (1807), bad been said to bave been caused br the District of Columbia court's reluetance to tolerate a "derogation" from its power by permitting "a section of the union to prescribe to them"; (3) Goodwin T. Jones, 3 Mass. 513 (1807), wbleb was contrary to an earller practice (supra note 22). Justice Storr, in TrecotWck T. Austin, supra note 33, cites: (1) Massachusetts authoritr wblch was largely conditioned by stotute (supra note 29); (2) Fenwick T. Sears's Adm'rs, supra; (3) Milligan T. MlUedge. 3 Cranch (7 'U.S.) 220 (1805), ,,'Web concerned a suit against a foreign executor; (4) Doe T. Y'Farland, 9 Cranch (13 U.S.) 151 (1815), wblch permitted a foreign executor to sue as a devisee.


Story 422.

37. See also e. J:. Lenke T. Gilchrist. 13 N.C. 73, S5 (1829); nnd, f;tlll, lloore \'. Jordan, 3G Kall. 271, 27ij, 13 r. 33';, 339 (1887); Wilkins T. Ellett, lOS U.S. 256. 258, 2 S.Ct. 641, 642 (1883).
38. Blake v. McClung, 172 U.S. 280, 19 S.Ct. lOS n89S). Exclusion in that case of foreign corporate creditors from this protection bas probabl,. been overruled in Kentucky Finance Corp. T. Paramount Auto Exchange Corp.. 262 U.S. 544, 43 S.Ct. 636 (1933). See in ~eneral Chentham, The Statutory Successor, Tbe Receiver and the Executor In Conflict of Laws, 44 Col.L.Rev. 549 (1944); ·infra § 16 note 84-

4. Beverly Beach Properties \'. Nelson. OS So.2d 604 (Fla.l953), cert. den. sub nom. Rensta T. Beverly Beach Properties, 348 U.S. 816, 7u S.Ot. 27 (1954) (Oalifornia guardian of incompetent)· .Be Cape May &: D. B. No Co., 51 N.J.L. 78. 16 A. Itlt (1888): Gow Y. Consol. Copper Mines Corp., 19 Del.Cb. 172. 165 A. 136 (1933); Annos.. 114 A.L.R. 1007; 41 A.LR.2d 1082; supra § 18 note 31.
5'1 Canfield v. Scripps, 15 Cal.App.2d 642. 59 P.2d 040 (1936). cert. den. 800 U.S. 6lS8, 67 S.Ct. 481 (!036); DaviS v. Connelly's Executors. 4 B.Mon. (43 Ky.) 186 (1848) ("executors de 80n tort"). See also ~n re Paine's Estate. 128 Fla. 161.174 So. 430 (1937). ssut see Braithwaite T. Barvey. 14 Mont. 208. 36 P. 93 (1894); York v. Bank of Commerce & Trust Co.• ~.W.2d 833 (Tenn.App.I985); In re Cowbam's te, 220 Mich. 660. 190 N.W. 680 (1922).
Ehrenzwelg Conflict of LawI-4

39. Cheatham, supra note 38; .~tkinson. the Uniform Ancillary Administration and Probate Acts. 67 BarT.L.ReT. 619 (19M); Comment, 30 Tex.L.Ile\,. 714 (1937); infra 5 15.







THE PARTIES BEFORE THE COURT ( ) would be free. The rule is simply an application of the general principle that "the bearer of a note or bill payable to bearer, need not prove a consideration, tmless he possesses it under suspicious circumstances." 18 But not only bearer instruments will en.. _ able the foreign administrator to proceed against the maker. Negotiable bonds have always been treated in the same manner. IT The same rule has been advocated for other negotiable instruments by virtue of the socalled "mercantile theory." 18 It has apparently been adopted by a majority of courts, perhaps partly due to the fact that a rule to the contrary could easily be evaded by as· signment or endorsement.19
Trustee for next.of-kin. Where the amount whose recovery is sought by the for.. eign administrator is to be held by him in trust for third parties rather than for the estate, rights of domestic creditors of the estate are not in jeopardy. It is Significant that in such cases, even in the absence of statutory regulation to this effect, courts have been virtually unanimous in recognizing the administrator's standing to sue.:o This "excep..

a local administrator.o It seems to have a1.
ways been the law, therefore, in both inter·

state and intemational conflicts cases, tbat

_ a foreign administrator is given standing to
sue when trying to collect a judgment recovered by him upon a claim of the decedent. lo Moreover, standing to sue will be ac· corded to the foreign administrator upon any new cause of action acquired by him in his own right (though in the course of his administration).11 ' Such actions include those by virtue of a trust; 12 insurance or other contracts concerning assets of the estate; 13 and claims resulting from torts in· Bicted upon estate assets after his appointment.I" Holder in due course. An administrator may recover in other states upon bearer instruments found in the estate. This longstanding rule 14 is irrelevant for present purposes. It seems unnecessary to seek an explanation either in' the administrator's Uti:· tie" or in the situs of the instrument or even in the argument- tliat otherwise the maker

51 ACTIVE CAPACITY § 15 tion" from the general rule has been partic.. out t3 reUance upon full faith and credit, the u1arly important with regard to suits under administrator may be recognized as the only 2 wrongful death statutes, which probably proper plaintiff under the lex loci. & Where, however, the forum law excludes nonresident constitute the majority of all suits brought representatives in general, such exclusion by administrators. may be considered applicable contrary to the Courts seem generally agreed that a wronglex loci as a matter of procedure, and force fUl death statute authorizing the administrathe plaintiff into a court with a less favorable tor to sue on behalf of the decedent's nextof-kin renders him a trustee for third parties wrongful death statu~e.=5 rather than for the estate and therefore enA di1Iicult situation may be created by the titled to sue outside the state of his appoint.. appointment of an administrator in a state mente But difficulties may arise where the other than that of the place of injury.:s In law of the forum and that of the place of in- such a case, a contest may arise between the jury differ in this respect. Apparently, the administrator appointed in the state of the forum will usually be prepared to apply the forum; that of the state of the decedent's lex loci.u It will thus, under that law, rec- domicile; md.-this may be particularly ognize a foreign administrator as plaintiff on troublesome,-the administrator appointed in the widow's behalf, even where forum law any state in which assets are found. But would treat the administrator as representing the defendant is ordinarily free from liability the estate as such. Indeed, with:: or withproblem. See Wills V. Frnnklln, 131 F.SupP. 668, 6iO (E.D.Teno.1o-;;S): infra § n1. In nny event. the Fidelity Bnnk oS: Tmst Co. v. Baese. 138 F.Supp. 683, ndjudlcation of domicile ns n hnsis of nppointment R86 m.D.Tenn.10am (Kentucky): Cooper v. Ameriis not entitled to constitutional recognition. Riley enn Airlines, 140 F.2d 355 (2d Clr. ID4G) ([{entucky); v. Xe\v York Trust Co.• 315 U.S. 343, trl S.Ct.·"OOS: Wnllnn T. Rnnkin, 173 F.2d 488. 493 (Oth Cir. 1D49) (1041). See Illso Valley Not. Bnnk of Phoenix v. (Oregon and CaHfornia); Howard T. Pulver. :J2U Slebrand. 74 ArlL 54. 242 P.2d 711 (1952). Mich. 415. 45 N.W.2d 5.'ID (1951) (Indlnnn): Bradshaw V'. lIoyers. 152 F.Supp. 249 (S.D.Ind.105'i) (n· 23. See WaBan v. Rankin. 173 F.2d 488, 493 (Oth llnols); Knight v. llollne. East lIollne'" Watertown Clr., 1049) ("comity"): Rest. § 3D6, comment c; Ry. Co.• 160 lown 160, 140 N.W. 830 (1013) (mlnois); Goodrich 30L Reilly V'. Antonio Pepe Co•• 108 Conn. 438, 143 A.: 568 (109.8) (New York); De lIattei v. Mlssouri-Kon. 24. But see 1nfrn notes 26,27. sas-Texas R. Co., 345 Mo. 1136, 1140. 139 S.W.2d 504 (10-10) mI.); Ghilanl- v. Couture. 84 N.H. 48, 146 25. Bames v. Union -PacifiC R. R. Co., 130 F.SupP. los. 200 (D.O.Idaho 1056). ConSistent npplication of A. 305 (1020) (Mass.); Boulden v. Penn. n. Co.• the law of damngeB of the place of injury (cf. Anno., 205 Pn. 264, 54 A. 006 (1003) (N.J.); Connor Y. New 13 A..L.R.2d 646, to be dealt with more fully In the York. ~. H. & H. R. Co., 28 R.I. 560, 68 A. 481 second Part) would remove most temptations for (1008) (Conn.). See nlso lIoore-l\lcCormack Lines T. suing outside the state of that place, which is usulIcMnbon. 235 F.2d 142, 144, 148 (2d Clr. 1056) (dfs. n111 alSo the place of appointment and will permit sent); Gross v. Hocker, 243 Iowa 201. 51 N.W.2d nonresident service under its nonresident motorist 466 (1952) [exemption from creditors' claims, Note. statute (I 28). See also Carder v. lIarkboff, 143 F. 43 Iowa L.Rev. 74, 84 (195'1)]; ADno., 52 A..L.R.2d Supp. 920 (E.D.Mlch.l956), following Howard V. 1016; Infra notes 21, 22. Wnbur T. Ford. 81 F. Pulver, 329 lllcb. 415, 45 N.W.2d 530 (1951) in adSupp. 641 (lIass.1949) concerned 0. sister state promlttlDg foreign nonresident adminJstrators os not bate judge suing on a probate bond. See In general excluded by the general exclusionary stntute of the McDowell. OPe cit. supra § 14 Dote 2, at ISS f1'. forum state. As to the applicobillty of state law 21. Baldwin v. Powell, 294 N.Y. 130, 61 N.E.2d 412 in federal courts, see Federai Rule - of Clv.Proc. (1945). See also Barnes v. Union Pacific R. Co., 13911(b). F.Supp. 198, 200 (Idaho 1956); Oltlzens Fidelity Bank &; Trust Co. v. Baese, 136 F.Supp. 683, 685 26. See eo g. Howard v. Pulver, suprn note 25. Since exclusion from the estate of the claim to be sued (Tenn.1955); O. J. Peck Oil Co. v. Diamond. 204 F. upon is the very basis of the admlnJstrator's au2d 119, 180 (5th- Clr. 1953) (accident in forum state) ; thority outside the state of his appointment. apAnderson V. Lane, 97 F.SuPP. 265 (E.D.S.C.l951): pointment by the state of the place of injury has Betts v. Southern Ry. Co.. 71 F.2d 187 (4th Oir. been- said to be illogical (though necessary) in the 1934) ; TUlInghast v. Maggs, 82- B.L 478, III A.2d absence from that state of other assets. Goodrich 113 (1955). 30L As to the situs of inSUrance· c1a.ims see infra ~ AppJJcabUlty of full faith and crecUt to appointI 23 note 20, f 26 Dote 53. ments of administrators is of course a more- general


Talmadge T. Chapel, 16 lIass. il, 73 (1810); BIddle T. WllkiDs, 1 Pet;-(26 U.S.) 688 (1828). Biddle v. WllIdDs, 1 Pet. (26 U.S.) 686 (1828): Talmadge v. Chapel, 16 l(Q8S. it (1819); Lewis v. Adams, 70 Cnl. 403, 11 P. &13 (1886); Hare T. O'Brien, 233 Pa.. 330, 82 A. 47G (1912); lIoore Y. Kraft. 110 F. 68S (7th. Clr. 1010); lIcCraw v. SImpson, 208 Ark. 471, 187 S. W.2d 536 (1945); Turner v. Alton Banking'" Trust Co., 166 F.2d 305 (8th Clr. 1948); lIcDowell, OPe -cit. supra § 14 note 2, nt 38. But see Moore T. Smith, 171 Va. 621,15 S.E.2d 48


llaurnn T. Lamb, 7 Cowen (N.Y.) 174. 176 (1827) (agent). 17. Daniel v. Luker, 5 Dyer 305, 73 Eng.Rep. 68"T (Q.B. 15n). See In general Buebanan and ~fyers, The Administration of Intangibles, etc.. 48 Horv.L.Rev. Dll. 013 (1035). 18. Goodrich 544; Stumberg 448; 3 Beale. ConJUct (1941). . of Laws (1935) 1547; Rest. 11410, 509. II. Rest. 1 50a _ 19. Marr v. Plummer. 3 GreenL (He.) 73 (1824): 12. Fox v. Tay, 89- CaL 339, 24 P. 8S5 (1890), 26 P. 8IrT OhamberJJn v. WUson, 43 Iowa 149 (1876); Ames· (1891); Rawitzer v. First Trust Co.• 175 CaL 585, v. CItIZens' Nat. Bank, 105 Kan. 83. 181 P. 364 :sB7. 166 P. 581. 582 (1019); In re Sikorski's Estate. (1919); Smith T. Normart. ill Ariz. 134, 75 P.2d 38 121 Mont. 563, 268 P.2d 395 (1954): In re Hoag. (1938); Flath v. Neal. 63 Ariz. 68, 159 P.2d 617 land's Estate. 15 N.J. 592, 105 A.2d 825 (1954). (1945); lllchlgan Trust Co. v. Chaffee, 73 N.D. 86. _ 11 N.W.2d 108 (1943); Annos., 114 A.L.R. 1461; 13. See e. g. Old Dominion Trust Co. v. First Nat. 149 A.L.R. 1083. But ct. Jones v. Turner, 249 Mlch -Bank, 260 F. 22 (4th' Clr. 1919); Von Lingen Y. 403, 228 N.W. i96 (1930) [possibly obsolete In the Field. 154 MeL 638. 141 A.. 390 (1928) i Wolt v. Sun Ilght of Howard v. Pulver, 329lf1cb. 415, 46 N.W.2d Ins. Co•• 75 Mo;App. 3Q6 (1898); Rest. § 483. 530 (1951) J; Cannon V. Cannon, 228 N.O. 211. 45 S. 14. See e. g. VlnsOn v. Davis, 76 OkL 43. 183 P. 00'2 E.2d 34 (ib47); HJ~ v. Shively, 137 S.W.2d 102 (1919) (under statute); and in general GOOdrich, (Tex.Clv.App.l940). Of. 3 Beale, ConJUct of Laws Problems of Foreign Administration, 39 Barv.L.ReT. (1936) 1548; supra note 6; intra § 16 note 22; and 797, 816 (1926). . In general McDowell, op. cit. supra I 14 note 2, at 15. lIarr v_Plummer; a.. Green!. (He.) 73 (1824); BUo _ 41 f1'. rett Y. Barrett, 8 _Me. -8G3 (1832); Roblnson-· v. OraD- 20. See e. g. Wiener V. SpecUic Pharmaceutlcals, 298 daJ1. 9 Wend. 425 (N.Y.1832). N.Y. 346, 83 N.E.2d 678 (1949) (Michigan); 01t1zeDa








.once be has paid anyone of these admin- , Statutory authority. Although uniform 'istrators.!'7 Since it is usually the next-of-kin .legislation aimed at the ,abolition of the adthat are in effect represented by the admin- ministrator's ,obsolete mcapacity, has not istrator, the recovery will in any event bene- been achieved (p.. 45), a large number of states have enacted statutes "dealing with fit the same individuals. this problem.32 Thus, the New York Dece''Waiver'' of incapacity. Any court deny- .dents Estate Law ,now provides for full acing the procedural capacity of a foreign ap- tive procedural capacity of foreign reprepointed administrator as such, must, to be sentatives. This capacity is limited only by consistent, consider lack of such capacity on their duty to post security for court costs its own motion. Being "fundamental, going upon the defendant's demand, and to certify to the jurisdiction of the court," 28 such'in- the nonexistence of debts and of an ancillary , capacity could not be subject to waiver by administration within the state. By 'these the failure to file a plea in abatement or its llmltations, the law ,.attempts to meet the equivalent 29 Recognition of the unsound- "only cogent reason" for the common law ness of the basic principle has often ex- rule of incapacity, i. e., the interest of dopressed itself, however, in the courts' will- mestic creditors.33 Some states limit by ingness to proceed with the foreign adminis- statute the foreign administrator's authortrator notwithstanding his not having ity to cases where no local representative "standing to sue," if this issue was not prop- bas been appointed.sc Adopting these or erly raised by the defendant30 Similarly, similar safeguards, courts might in view of a suit brought by an administrator in his the lack of historical and analytical justificacapacity as representative of the estate will tions for the incapacity rule,35 modify it in quite generally be permitted to be amended the same manner, even without the aid of to read as a suit brought by him as a trus- legislation, with or without resort to the tee, notwithstanding the expiration of the doctrine of comity to be dealt with p'resentStatute of Limitations.31 ly. And it might become possible to extend this trend to include administrators appoint'D. Ne)son's Adm'r T. Chesapeake 8: Ohio n. Cc;!., 8S Va. 971, 14 S.E. 83S (1892). See a)so Cook T. Knox, ed by courts of foreign countries, who have
2i3 J>.2d sr.:; (Okl.ln:.-1); RUe,- T. Fallon, 163 Knn. 816,252 P.2d 029 (19;;3,. 28. Hicks v. Shively, 13; S.W.2d 100 ('l'ex.CiT.App.

,held excluded even under such liberal -as that of the state of New York.ae . ''''"Comity.'' Courts have occasionally de,'-deled to grant foreign representatives pro·'.cedural capacity "as a matter of comity in 1;be interests of justice." 8'7 Thus a "'foreign ,...()ministrator was permi~ to intervene 18Ild oppose probate; 38 or to seek the remis-con of movables; 39 the revocation of letters . ,..of administration; 40 or an order modifying a dvorce decree ,affecting the estate.u But dO long ,as these cases are treated as excep:. ~ons from a general rule of incapacity, such .. gants of interstate courtesy at the expense ,of private parties, in the absence of com-'))Ulsion by full faith and credit or "logic," may very well be subject to attack as viola,1ions of due process or equal protection (§ 47); and "confiict avoidance" by adVance 'Planning stilI appears -as the most reliable '1I1eans for preventing multiple administrations.a Full faith and credit to sister state .aPPointments could remove some of the diffi:eulty (§ 51) .~,
d. "REAL PARTY IN INTEREsT" FollOwing earlier case law,u statutes and judicial decisions of almost three-fourths of
86. Glbb T. Chisholm, 204 lllsc. 8D!!. ]26 N.Y.S.2d 150 (1953). But see MIss.Code ADn.l9i2, § G%!; N.M. Stat.Ann.1953, § 31-2-9; Baldwin's Ohio neT.Code ,1958, § 2113.75. . 1f1. Kirkbride T. Van Note, 275 N.Y. 244, 250, 9 N.E. 2d 852, 854 (1937). See also e. g. Buder T. Becker, 18ij F.2d 311 (8th Cir. 1900) (permitting suit wbere ancillary administration would not bave been pos· sible); McDowell, op. ciL supra § 14 note 2, at 50 fl. "Comity" will of course not be extended wbere the forum denies the appointing court's jurisdiction because of a diflerent adjudication of domicile. In re Armstrong's Estate, 167 Mise. 592, 4 N.l:.S.2d 413 (Surr.1938).
38. lIatter of Davis, 182 N.l:. 468, 75 N.E. 530 (1905). .39. Matter of Hughes, 95 N.l:. 55 (1884). -40. Matter of McCabe, {sf App.DIT. 145,82 N.Y.S. 180 (1903), aff'd 177 N.Y. 584, 69 N.E. 1126 (1904). ~l. Kirkbride T. Van Note, supra note 37. -42. Scoles and Rhe1nsteln, Conftlct Avoidance In Suecession Planning, 21 Law 8: ConLProb. 499, 524 (1950).

the states '4' require the prosecution of suits 45 in the name of tpe urea]. par:ty in in· terest." Many exceptic)Ds 'concerning, cer" tain persons roughly classified as fiduciaries,48 who are permi~d to.,sue in their own names, have, however, 4eprived the rule of much of its vitality. Moreover, since the original purpose of this rule '(to solve an all~ed deadlock with rePro to assignments of choses in action), baS long ceased to prevail,''; re~amination of the rule has been urged with much persuasiven,ess.48 ' In the meantime, variations between state laws,"9 while reduced by both the spread of the statutory rule and similar exceptions therefrom, continue to cause problems of co~icts of laws. Treating these problems .as ,procedural, courts seem inclined to apply the law of the forum. This is true in particular in a,subrogation suit by an insurer agaiJlst an ,alleged tortfeasor or his insurer. To evade the compulsion to sue in their own names,50 insurers have often disguised theiT interest by having payments to their insured treated as loans payable upon recovery ~m the tort- , feasor. Since state laws' differ as to the effectiveness of such agreemen:ts,51 applicaRule: A Plea for Its Abolition, 32 N~T.U.L.ne\'. t)26 (19:;i); Clark, La\\' of Code Pleading (2d eel. 1947, 155f1'.; Simes, Tbe neal Party In Interest, 10 Ky. L.J.60 (1922); Clark and Hutchins, The Beal Party in Interest, 3-l Yale L.J. 209 (1923). 44. See Atkinson, supra note 43, at 932.
45. In some cases the statute also' deals with suits against real parties in Interest. Cf. Wls.Stat.Anu. I 200.15 (19-l0): infra § 37.
See Atkinson, supra note 43, at 938ff.

Ibid. 30. Gross T. Bocker, 243 Iowa 291, 51 N.W.2d 46G (1952): Antbes T. Anthes, 21 l~nbo 305, 121 P. 553 (1912); Mny Y. Burk, 80 Mo. G.5 (1883): Wilson v. Wllson, 20 Or. 2:;1. as P. 1~ (1804); Wikotr'T. Birscbe), 258 N.l:. 28, 170 N.E. 249 (1032); Fort Fairfield Nash Co. T. Noltemier, 135 Me. 84, 189 A. 415 (1937); Hodges~. Kimball, 91 F. 845 (4th Cir., 1899). See also Moore T. Smlth,l7i Va. 621, 15 S.E. 2d 48 (1941) (waiTer dented only because of lack of opportUnity to object); Anno., 108 A.L.R. 1282, 1288' Note. 43 Iowa L.ReT. 74,84 (1937): Intra 116 note '28. On default judgments, see 'McDowell, op. cit. supra § 14 note 2, at 55 fl. 31. Rowles v. ETanulk, 350 Pa. 64, 38 A.2d 255 (1944)' Brennan T. Rooney, 139 F.Supp. 484 (E.D. pa.195e); Gogan T. Jones, 19i Tenn. 486,273 S.W.2d 700 (lfro4); Usner T. Duersmlth, 846 Pa. 494, 31 A. 2d 149 (1943). But see Piacquadlo T. Beaver Valley Service Co.. 355 Pa. 183, 40 A.2d 406 (1946). In genera) see Annos., 8 A.L.R.2d 6, 47; 52 A.L.lL2d 1016.

Mnxson T. McElhinney, 370 Pa. 022, 88 A.2d 74i (1952) (Incapacity of wi do\\' under lex loci nonwah'able). 32. See c. g. Colo.ReT.Stat. § ]52-6-4 (1954): Fla. Stat.]059, § 734-30(1); Dl.Ann.Stat.(lOGl) e. 3, § 262 ; and in general Comment. 50 CoI.L.ReT. 518 (1950). See also c. It. Brennan v. llooney, 130 F.Supp. 484 (E.D.Pn.195G). Cf. McDOWell, op. cit. supra § 14 note 2. at 07ft. 33. N. l:. Judicial Counell, 17 Ann.Rep. (1051) 157, 160. Supra § 14 note 38. 34. See Mlcbipn Trust Co. v. Chaffee. '13 N.D. 86, 11 N.W.2d 108 (1943), distinguishing the forum statute on this ground from those of South Dakota and Nebraska. 35. Cf. Atkinson, The Uniform Ancillary Administration and Probate Acts. 6i Ban'.L.BeT. 619 (1954); Atkinson, Succession, 30 N.'f.U.L.ReT. 845, 872 (1955) ("Shades of Beresford, Bengbam, Berle, Passeler, and their brothers of the 'feat Book era I Stubbornness at the bar . • • outmatched by pettiness on the bench"); Note. lSO M1ch.L.Rev. 148


47. 48.

Id. at 934, 940.
leI. at 958tr.

49. On federal practice, see Comment, 4 U.C.L.A.L. Be\,. 619 (1957). For analYSis of the concept against the backgrouud of German law In a U. S. Court of the Allied BI~h Comm'n for Germany, see Coen T. Szczes, 10 Court of Appeals Bep. 376, 378 (1950).


See in general Atkinson, supra note 43, at 942tr.

!43. See Field v. Magbee. 5 Paige Ch. 538 (N.l:.1836) ; .and in general Atkinson, Tbe Real Party in Interest

Compare e. g. Furrer v. Yew Creek Logging Co., 206 Or. 382, 292 P.2d 499 (1956) with Cleveland Paint 8; Color Co. T. Bauer Mfg. Co •• 155 ObioSL 17. 97




§ 16



tion of the lex fori in this respect 52 may invite forum shopping~ Abolition of real party in interest statutes would more properly leave the conflicts solution to substantive choice of law.

e. REcEIvERs
§ -16. Function and local jurisdiction. "A receiver is an officer appointed by a court to assume the custody and control of property, and to preserve and sequester the same, pending litigation concerning its disposal." 1 As to corporations more comprehensive formulas have been used to embrace the large number of highly diversified functions of receiverships. These have been defined, for instance, as designed to aid the creditor "to conserve the common fund for the benefit of himself and the creditors at large," : or even more generally.3 Interstate conflicts in thisfield have been greatly reduced since Congress, in order to facilitate federal receiverships in bankruptcy or otherwise;' has provided for the nationwide procedural capacity of receivers is and -nationwide jurisdiction
N.~d 54G (1951). See o.lso Notes. 32 Corn.L.Q. 278 (1946); 89 U.Pa.L.Rev. 395 (1041); 4nno., 151 A.L. _ R.1261.

over the debtor and- his property.8 Interstate problems are now limited to such equity receiverships as are still resorted to by individuals and corporations not covered by the Bankruptcy Act,T and to certain trans. actions not involving insolvent debtors. These cases include applications of stock. holders,a mortgagees,9 or lienholders, II). aimed at the conservation from waste, of assets corporate or encumbered. The rule. All through its history, the procedural capacity of foreign receivers has

voluntarY assignee,U American courts might have treated the receiver appointed at the debtor's domicile as having title to the latter'S assets anywhere.u The ancient rule that movables follow the owner's domicile,l~ might have supplied the rationale.

time, old and new exceptions continued, or began, to jeopardize the standing of the rule and of its rationale.

been affected by two contlicting poliCies. U Following an analogy to the treatment of the
Concernin~ the status of American receivers o.brond. see llacLnchlan. Bankntptcy (1956) 81, 184. l~ 1052 Amendment of the Bankruptcy Act declares the trustee to have title to property wher-

(1940) 30il'l'.

'7-"::-:",!"__""..y~- ""-~7'"

Nu.loeated;- -11 U.S.c.A. § iO(a). ....

~~~~II!id~:edE!rll1_ equity

receivers, JudIcJa.1 Code : and as to both equity IUld !!=~~r~ Id. f O59(a), Infra note 31.

::;!:~~;f.:t~ §I 101. 202. providing tor t1 • receivers for Insolvent na.tfon-

j5Ela;~Cfrfr~,,]e~Of r:II:ID

S2. .\:etna. Freight Lines v. R. C. Two.y Co., 208 S. W. 2d ·203 (Ky.l051). See o.lso Rest. f {iSS: Ilnd in gen-

.\grlculturnl Credlt 12 U.S. Currency; Corpothat a. trustee under HOld.ln~ Company Act Is "In a po!6iiiDlli~ilt;,1'to tha~ of a receiver," see Ladd v. ~ 2l2; 2:n (lst Clr. 1(46), cert. den. n;: S.Ot: Giri (1041). See In general, ~.for:·t.he Bankruptcy Act: The ExcJuded- COrporotioWl,' -12 :\Unn.L.Rev. 171 (1037).

Exceptions. First: Foreign receivers, like personal representatives (§ 15), have always been permitted to sue as to legal transBut. while this practice might have re- actions entered upon,18 or judgments responded to commercial needs for a unitary covered, by them. 19 This exception has inadjudication of title, it would have run afoul cluded assignments made by the debtor of the interests of local creditors in local as- himself,20 as well as negotiable instrusets. In order to protect their interest in ments.21 No case has been found in which denying the foreign receiver's standing to the foreign receiver assigned his claim to a sue, local laws or policies were given prefer- local asSignee to make it suable.= ence. U They were to yield to foreign rules Second: Like a personal representative, a only through comity, which was typically re- foreign receiver may, either in the appointfused to foreign statutes.1I In a much-quo- ing or any other state,:3 recover the posted dictum in Booth v. Clark, the Supreme session of property wrongfully removed Court gave final sanction to the denial by from his custody, provided the statute of federal courts of the capacity to sue, of the the appointing state has vested him with tiforeign receiver who, the Court found, had tle or the right to possession. "never been recognized by a fOreign tribunal Third: The foreign receiver has been held as an actor in a suit." IT But at the same entitled to sue as a "quasi-assignee" as to 12. cr. Black and Chapman v. Zachnrle &: Co., :tHow. any double or additional liability of the corporate shareholders upon whom such liabil(44 U.S.) 483 (1&15). See also Security Trust Co. v. Dodd, llead &: Co., 113 U.S. 624. 628. 10 S.Ct. iW3. ity has been imposed by legislation of the ap546 (1800); and In general. Sunderland. Foreign Voluntary Asslr:nments for the Benefit of Creditors, pointing state.=f
2 1I1ch.L.Rev. 112. 180 (1003). See also infra DOte 33. 13. 18.

eral Kessner, Federnl Court Interpretations of the Real Po.rty In Interest Rule in Cases of Subrogation, 39 Neb.L.Rev. 452 (1060). I. 1 :\(oooo's Federnl Proctlce (2d ed. 1000) § 66.03. The Dutchess of :\Iarlborough v. The Duke of llarlborough, Barn.C. 69, 2i Eng.Rep. W8 (11.JO), is otten referred to WI the' earliest case to recognize the chancery's power to appoint receivers. 2. Shapiro v. Wilgus, 287 U.S. 348, :mo, 53 S.Ct. 142, 144 (1032), per Cardozo;J. 3. "Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence (5th ed. 1941) I 1330. 4. See In general 1 Moore, OPe cit. sopra note I, Comment to Federal Rule 66. As to consent receiver$blps In particular, see e. g. Levi. Corporate ReorganizatIon and a Ministry of Justice, 23 MInn.L.Rev. 1 (1038); Sabel, Equity Jurisdiction In the United. States Courts with Reference to Consent Receiverships. 20 Iowa L.Bev. sa (1934). 5; Concerning the remaming problems in the relation between state and federal law, see- In· general Moore's Commentary OD the U. S. JudlcJal Code,

See e. g. Btlrnrlte Coal Briquette Co. v. RIggs, 274U.S. 208, -Ii S.Ct. 518 (1921): Skirvin v. llesta, 141 F.2d 668 (lOth Cir. 1044); 4pplicntlon of Burge, 282 App.Dlv. 210, 122 N.Y.S.2d 232 (1953), atl'd 306 N.Y. 82'.!, 118 N.E.2d 822 (10M). .

9. See e. g. Garden Homes v. United States, 200 F.2d 299 (1st Cir., 1952).

See e. g. WI1Unms v. Southern Cotton 011 Co., 45 F.2d 387 (5th Cir. 1030). For other recelvershlp.s: see 1 lIoore, OPe cit. supro note 1, I 06.09.

Holmes v. Remsen. 4 JobDs. 460. 487 (N.Y.Cb. 1820). Chancellor Kent. who-(aecordlng to Johnson v. Sharp, infra) wrote the op1n.lon, had to concede. however, only a few years later, that the law bad come to be to the contrary. 2 Kent, Commentaries (1821) 330 ft. Only Ohio [Bogers and Hatton v. Allen, 3 Ohio 488 (1828): WIckham v. Dlllon, Fed. C~'lo. 11,612 (1860)] and New Jersey [Moore v. Bonnell and Dusenbury, 3l N..T.L.. 00 (1864)] continued. to adhere- to· this rule. But see Johnson v. Sharp, 31 Ohio St. 6ll (1811). For the- English practice see e. g. Graveson508ff.

Iglehart Y. BIerce. 36 m. 133 (1864) (mortgage). See Burt V. Hopps. 2 A.D.2d 062, 1ST N.Y.S.2d 218 (1056) (not cJear whether concerning post-appolnt-. ment tort). 19. WllkInson V. Culver, 25 F. 639 (S.D.N.Y.l885). 20. See e. g. Ward V. Conn. PIpe- Mfg. Co.. 71 Conn.
343, 41 A. 1051 (1800).
21. See e. g. White v. Ewing, 109 U.s. 36, 40, ~ S.Ct. 1018, 1019 (1895).

II. Rose. ExtraterritOrial Action by Receivers, IT M1nn.L.Rev. 104 (1033); Hamllton, Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. of Receivers, 22 .un.L.Reg. 289 (1883); Bolles, The Law Govern1Dg Foreign Receivers, 18 Yale L.J. -iSS (1909); Laughlin, The Extraterritorial Powers of Receivers, 4G Harv;L.Rev. 429 (1932); First, Extl'8terrttorfal Powers of ReceIvers, 21 DL L.Rev. 211 (1932); First, LlabWty In Conduct ot' Receiverships, 80 U.Pa.L.Rev. 943 (1932): Riesen60 Colum.L.Bev. 659, 680-681. (1960); Comment, 41 Yale L.J. 598, 131 (1932); Notes; 30 Mlch.L.Rev. 1322 (1932); 43 Harv.L.Rev. 80G (1980).

14. On the controversial histol'1 ot this rule. see e. g. 2 La1n~ Droit Internatlcma1 PrIve (1802) 227; lreljers, L'hlstol1'e des prineipes fondamentau du DIP a. partlr-du moyen. age. 40 Rec.(I034) 341,638 ft. See also Chesh1re 41Off.; Infra § 23lS. IS. See Rose, supra note 11, at 106, and cases there cited; Nadelmann, Legal Treatment~of Foreign and Domestic Creditors, 11 Law &: Cont. Probe 696 (1946), SeL Read. 1~; infra note 33.
18. See e. g. Woodwud V. Brooks, 128 DL 222,20 N.E. 686 (1889). 17. Booth v. Clark, IT How. (158 U.S.) 322. 335 (l8lS4).

22. For a related situation, see Nadelmann, The National Bankruptcy Act IUld the' Con1l1ct of Laws, 59 Harv.L.Bev. 1023, 1051 (1046). See also supra f 15 notes 6,19. 21 See e. g. Osgood v. llaguire, 61 Y.Y. 524 (18m; Ollkes v. Lake. 200 U.S. 50, 54 S.Ct. 13 (1933); Goodrich 001.
24. BemheJmer v. Converse, 208 U.S. 516. 21 S.Ct. 155 (1901); Converse v. Hamilton, 224 U.s. 243, 32 S.Ct. 415 (1911); Hlmlng v. HamllD. 200 Iowa 1322, 206 N.W. 611 (1923); Howarth v. Lombard, 175 Mass. 570, 56 N.E. 888· (1900) ; Shipman v. Treadwell, 208 N.Y. 404, 102 N.E. 634 (1913). For a detalled analysis ot thIs now almost obsolete problem,

feid. CredItors' Remedies and the Condlct ot Laws..

see Laughlln. supra note 11, at 41S2f1'. Concerning the repeal ot the "assignee cJanae" (beartDg on ell-




Cit. 1


5 .J

Fourth: Similarly, assets outside that the absence of local creditors.80 This prac·state may be subjected to his suit by.his ap- .tice alone would seem to justify a re-exampointment as a "statutory successor" of a ination of the present validity and rationale dissolved corporation.16 In that case, how~ of the rule.31 ever, an attachment ievied subsequent to BatioDBle and outlook. The incapacity such appointment does not necessarily afrule has outlived its usefulness and should fect prior localattacbments,- and the validity of the appointment itself may be subject . be abandoned. It would not have found the to collateral attack as encroaching upon the wide adoption it has received,32 had it not at one·time responded to the concern for 10"federal field. tt 1'7 . cal interests." But this concern has long Fifth: The conceptual basis of the receased to be meaningful,. since the SUpreme ceiver's procedural incapacity is rendered rather wlnerable by the willingness of the 3D. Coben T. La Vin, 210 F.2d 550 (2d Cir. 1954); courts to permit it to be "waived" by the ·stone T. Penn Yan. Keuka Park &: Branchport Ry.• 107 N.Y. 270. 00 N.E. 843 (l910): Rlchnrdson opponent; 18 and to recognize the cure of \. So. Florida Mort.:. Co., 102 Fla. 318, 130 So. 393 initial "extra-territorial" nonexistence (1031); Flaaeke Y. Winona Mills Co•• 104 Conn. 605. 134 A. 2~ (1920). For cases bolding the minority through subsequent ancillary appointment29 Tie,,' to the coDtrarr sec Laughlin, supra note 11. at43!l D. 33, stressing that they involTe situations Sixth: Most important, state courts quite "where tbe extension of the priyUege of suit would generally permit foreign receivers to sue in bave beeu exceedingly imprudent.

versltr jurisdiction) by the Judicial Code. see 3 Moore, Federal Practice (2d eeL 1948, Supp. 1901) I 17.00.

31. See Federal Rule 17(b) (2) which refers to 28


Relfe T. Rundle. 103 U.S. 22:! (1880). This rule hal'; been conRidere,l limltec1 to personnlty. Goo,1rich uSi. S~ al!:O Clark Y. WIIUnl"(l. 29'.1 U.S. 112. M S.CL 01~. 294 U.s. 211. W 8.Ct. 35Ci (1934); Clark \. Pref('rred Acchlent lns. Co.. 231 S.C. 1G'i. 97 S.E. 2,1 498 nn:jj) ("full faith and credit"): Pink \. Hnnhr. 220 N.C. 007. 18 S.E.2d 12i 094:!): R~t. §§ 101. 507; Annos., 3 A.L.n. 202: 29 A.L.R. 1945: nnd in general CbenthalU. The Stntutorr Succe:sor, The Receh'er and tbl' Exec:otor iD Conflict of LaWf:;. 44 Co1.L.Re,·. 549 (lfl.H): supra • 12 note 20. Ree all'O Holz \"'. Smullan. 2" F.2d 58. 61 (ith Cir. 1900) ; Thatcher Y. City Terrace Cultural Center, 181 Cal.App.2d 431, Ii Cal.ltptr. 39G, 404 (1000).

U.S.c.A. It iM. 959(0) proTiding for the nntlonwlde procedurol capacl~ of federal receivers: 3 Moore's Federal Practice (2d ed. 1948, Supp.lOOl) Part IV; 7 Id. t 66.07.

26. See Clark \. WilUard, 292 'C.S, 112. 54 S.Ct. 01G (1984), 29-1 'C.S. 211, 5a S.Ct, 35G (lfJ3:),: Clark T. Preferred Accident lns. Co.• supra Dote 25; Glenn, Liquldatlon (1935) § USi. 27. Supra § 8 notes 9ff. OOIJ,pare New EDgland Coal &: Coke CO. T. Rutland n. Co" 143 F.2d 179 (2d Cir. 1944)i First Nat. Bank T. Robinson, 10i F.2d 50 (lOth Cir. 1939); tDUk Stevens \"'. carolina Scenic Stages. 208 F.2d 332 (4th Cir. 1953). cert. den. 347 U.S. 91i, 74 S.Ct. 515 (1904); In re Schwartz Bros., 58 F.Supp. 761 (D.C.Mlnn.1945): In re DIstillers Factors Corp.• 91 F.Supp. 796 (D.C.N.J.l950). See also Pemberton Lumber &: M. Ind. \"'. Wm. RIdgway Const. Co., 38 N.J:Super. 383, 118 A.2d 873 (1935). 28. See e. g. McCandless v. Forlaud, 293 U.S. 67, 74, 55 S.Ct. 42, 45 (1934). 29. Coal & lroD By. Co. v. Reherd, 204 F. 859 '(4th Clr.1918).

32. Grent Western lIlnlnlt &: Yf~. Co. T. BorrlA, 198 C.S. MI, 25 S.Ct. 'ii0 (19<r.i); Keatley T. Furey. 226 C.S. 300. 33 S.Ct. 121 (1912); Sterrett \'. Sec:!ond Nat. Bank. 248 U.S. 73, 39 S.Ct. 27 (1918); Lion Bonding & Surety Co. \'. Karatz. 202 U.S. 'ii.43 S. Cl 480 (1{)2.'i). ~"e alflo c. Jr. Hatten \. 'VOfIC, 150 F.2d 464, 469 (10th Clr.l9-J6); Sims v. Fidelity Assur. Ass'n. 129 P.2d 44!!, 45-1 (1M:!). State courts, although not bouml br tl)e&e decisions. ha\'e usually followed thenl. Sec e. g. Word ,'. IJne. Mut. Life Ins. Co.• 135 Cal. 2~. G'i P. 12-1 (1001); Hotcbkiss T. Martin, u2 So.2d 113 (Fla.lO~l) (olso denyinlt full fnlth and credit to the appointment order); Goodrich t>89; Sable. Suits by ForelJOl ReeeiTers. 19 Corn.I•.Q. 442 (In:H). For criticism see e. It. Rose. supra note 11. at 714; Note. 50 CoI.L.Rey. ulS, 524 (105(1). Apparently. the receh'er mar not e\'ell sue in the debtor's name. Great Western & Mining Mfg. Co. ,'. Barris, 198 U.S. 501. 5'ii. 2ii S.Ct. 770, 'ii5 (19001. But see Perry T. Western Motor Car' Co., 279 Ill.App. 195 (1935).


has forbidden discrimination against f. POWERS OF ATTORNEY ;.out-of-state creditors.34 § 1.7. Procedural capacity ·may also b: . . :In view of this development,85 the grow- in issue concerning persons claiming to sur· number of exceptions, and the expense, or to be sued on behalf of' ~other by virtu€' and inconvenience caused by the al- of an agency relationship. Sister state laws rule, as well as in view qf. the total are so similar in this respect 1 that few con~ce of. modem case authority supporting fiicts problems have arisen in this field. On the time may have come for its re-examin- the other hand, great variations in the laws notwithstanding its "good logical sup- of foreign countries, and particularly countries of the civil law orbit,1 have quite freIt has been suggested that general pro- quently raised the question whether the at·capacity of the foreign receiver torney's authority is govemed by the lex fori without impairing the authority of 'as a matter of procedure. ~ ~e prevailing doctrine,3'1 be derived from With the exception of litigation affecting . real party in interest statutes (§ 15). This forum land,3 in which application of the lex would permit the receiver to sue in the debt- fori seems attributable to a traditional pre.. 4)r's name. Moreover, local re-appointment occupation with sovereignty over land, 4 the '.-«lfthe foreign receiver has been seen as a inappropriateness of ignoring the law of the :possible device for giving relief without place of authorization has been widely recog..abandoning the traditional approach. But nized, and the maxim locus regit actum has .:this device is not only cumbersome, it is also been applied, abroad as well as in this coun-~eftective as a substitute for reform since try.!~ 'However, this rule has been primarily . ~ch re-appointment is by no means as- used in order to validate a· power that would . wred.38 At least as to local creditors seek- have been invalid under the lex fori. 6 It ... ing to seize local property subsequent to the ~. .appointment of the foreign receiver, the I. See in .:enernl Powell. PO"'~r~ of Attorney, N.Y. State L.Re\"'.Comm•• Iteportf:; (1946) OSlff. .~' ..1lresent "tender solicitude" for their con;~ ''Venience hardly outweighs the public in- 2. enCrawford. The Power of Att{)rner in Lntln Amt'ri(l>ept.Commerce lOan): Eder. Power,; of Atror:terest in "the promotion of an orderly settleJI('r ill Internntionnl PractlC'C. fl~ U.IJa.L.Itt'\". 8-10.

ment." 39



33. See for a voluntarr assi:;nment IDgraham T. Geyer, 13 Mass. 140, 148 (1816) (against "undue partiality towards foreign creditors. not warranted by the prinCiples of justice, nor required by the comity of nations"); Frank \. Bobbitt. 155 Mass. 112. 29 N.E. 200 (1891); Heyer T. Alexander, lOS Dl. 385 (1884) j Smith T. Lamson. 184 Ill. 71. 56 N.E. SS7 (l900); Fox \. Adams, 5 Me. 245 (1828); Bloomingdale \'. Well, SO Wash. 18,"70 P. 94 (1902). See in general, SUDderland, supra note 12. at 120. for inter- . mediate views in other states.

34. Blake '\'. llrClun.:. 172 U.S. 239. 19 S.Cl 1~ (1898). While thif:; case limits protection to foreign indi\"'ldunls. thlf; lhnltation is probably superseded by Kentuckr Finance Corporation ,'. Paramount Auto Exchnn)le Corporation. 262 U.S. 544. 43 S.Ct. tl30 (19'l..3). Cheatham, supra note 2;;. at wi. See in general Nadelmnnn. supra note 1a. 35. Cheathnm, suprn note 2~, nt rm:>. sugJrests that this de\'elopDlent permits the extension of the rae tionale of ReUe \. Rundle. supra note 25. which, notWithstanding its "technical reasoDs or justifications", was really Dlmed at the result now generally reached br Blake T. McClung, supra note M. oSS. Goodricb 585. .37. See Nnzareth Cement Co. T. Union Indemnity Co.. 11G Pa.Super. 500; 1;; A. 04 (1935); Nadelmann. The National Bankruptcy Act and the Conllict of Laws, 59 Ban.L.ReT. 102U. 1036 (1940). 38. See e.g. Bluefields S. S. Co. T. Steele. 184 F. liS4 (3d Cir. 1911); and In general Bose, supra note 11, at 714. 39. Goodrich 590.

8GO (l9U0): Schleslnller. Th(' Notnrr and tbe Form:'!1 Contract in CI\"'11 La\\'", N.Y.f'tate L.Re\'.Gomm. Rcmorts (1941) 403: Wachtell. Powers of Atlornt>r nnd the l)rinciple or LocUf:; lCe.:it Actunl in Central European Jurisdictions, OS t;.S.L.Re\·. 191 (193-11; Comment, [l9:>l] Wash.U.L.Q. 230 (1001); lleltbmann, [lOaO] Deutsche Not. Z. 4GU.
3. Morris \'. Linton. 61 Neb. G3i. Sii !'\.W. G05 (1001).

4. See Currie. Full Faith and Crecllt to ForelJrn Land Decrees, 21 U.Chl.L.Ue\"'. 620 (1054); infrn § 52 note 10 i § 58 Dotes 2 fr. 5. In re Everett's Estate, 112 ,ft. 252, 23 A.2d 202 (1941) (Italy); 2 Beale. Conllict of Laws (1935) 1009. Statutes. whUe adopting this principle, may estn~ lish specific requirements for foreilln powers. Minn. Stat.Ann. §§ 358.12ff.; In re Llberopulos, 245 MlDn. 553. 73 N.W.2d 60; (1955) (Greece). sometime~ submission of a certificate of compliance with thl' for. elgn law will suffice. N.Y. Real Propertr La\\'" t SOl-a; In re Geiger's Wm, 145 N.Y.S.2d 69i (Surr. 1955) (Hungary).
See MorriS T. Linton, 61 Neb. 537, S5 N.W. l56tI (1001), where non-compliance with the English 1'(qulrement was claimed unsuccessfully (but boldine


' ...





§ 22



may be doubted whether the rule would converselyobtain to invalidate the power, particularly since objections against validity are considered waived if not raised at the outset.', ,



§ 18. The active procedural capacity of foreign governments, like that of foreign corporations (§ 12), is not necessarily governed by the rules concerning their passive capacity. While likely to stress their sovereign immunity as defendants (§ 31), foreign governments may be anxious to obtain standing to sue without impairing their sovereign privileges. In the absence of treaties guaranteeing this right, rules of international comity, offering ''justice tha:t justice may be done in return," 1 permit any foreign government to
based upon concern with land, supra note 4). See also Martin lUnlnfr. Co. v. Companla. Ingenlera.. [1918] 21 K.B. 521 (invalidlty of lIexican power clalmed In Quebec because of use of Spanish language). 7. In re' Liberopwos; 245 lUnn. 553. 13 N.W.2d 601 (1955); Fed.Rules Cly-.Proc. DCa). For a. strong plea for even more liberal treatment, see Eder. supra note 2, at 854: infra § 169 note 3. RasslllD S.F.S. Republic v. Clbrario, 235 N.Y. 25G. 2:58,139 N.E. 259, 260 (1923). Snits in the Conrt of Claims are limited by a requirement of reciprocIty. 28 U.S.O.A. I 2502 (1052). See ~atlonal City Bank v. Rep~~llc of Chlna,.348 U.S. 300, 363. i5 S.Ct. 423, 428 (1955).

sue in American COurts. This privilege' even includes governments which are only formally at war with the United States, on the same principles applying to nonresident alien enemy individuals (§ 13). Their standing will be recognized if the reasons for disqualification, i. e. the prevention of aid and comfort to the enemy, no longer apply,3. and if recogni~on has been extended to the foreign government "even for the limited purpose of granting it permission to function and trade as a foreign government with our nationals and within our borders. . . ." Concerning public corporations additional problems are caused by their "various shades and degrees of legal personality," 5 which may secure or defeat governmental immunity.8
Government tn American Courts: Upright \". licrcury Business l(achines, 62 Colum.L.ReV'. 2m (1002).

Some of the ~blems of passive procedural capacity have been or will be dealt with elsewhere. Thus the immunities of foreign sovereigns and extraterritorial persons are discussed under the heading of personal jurisdiction, as are the immunities of witnesses, attomeys and parties (§ 31), insofar as they are not matters of choice of law to be taken up in the Second Part. The following sections will be devoted to the passive capacities of personal representatives, receivers, guardians and foreign corporaWhether the guardian may be held to account by a court other than that of the appointment state is a matter of competency under the law of the forum, and not related to the present problem..' Nor is the question of whether a guardian may be sued on a bond given pursuant to a foreign statute.1S It may well be that the ultimate solution, while conceding the foreign guardian's standing to be sued, will have to avail itself of the general doctrine of forum non conveniens for eliminating such hardship as might be caused by the transient rule of jurisdiction (§§ 30 ff.).
§ 22. Receivers. Here, as in the case of the personal representative (§ 23), the development of the law is hampered by the obsolete fiction that any effect of the appointment must logically remain limited to the "creating" state.1 This fiction has been largely discarded as to the receiver's active incapacity (§ 16). From this one might. a fortiori,. expect a similar result with regard to his passive incapacity, since this incapacity could not even be rationalized by the need for the protection of local creditors which has favored denial of the foreign receiver'S right to sue. But in contrast to his active incapacity, his lack of standing to be sued is germane to the very purpose of receiverships, which are in part designed to stay certain suits and executions upon judgments. Such suits and executions cannot
coming of age, where they had both removed to the forum state. See also Note, The Incompetent and his Guardian in the Conflict of Laws, 49 Col. L.Rev~ 104 (1949); nod infra i 87 uotes 1 ft. 4. Anderson v. Story, 53 Neb. 259, 73 N.W. 735 (1898) ; In re FeltriDe1ll's Estate, 159 N.Y.S.2d, 563 (Surr. 19G6). Concernlng the law applicable to the extent of his liability see Lamar v. lIlcoa, 112 U.S. 452, 5 S.Ct. 221 (1884). Cf. Rest. H,519 ft. Sr AnnO., 85 A.L.B.847, 849ft.

1. INDIVIDUALS § 2L Guardians.1
It has been shown
(113) that. notwithstanding a "logical" postulate to this effect, neither historical nor

Repnbllc of China v. Pong·Tsu l(ow, IG ~.J'. ]39. 104 A.2d 322 (1954): Pnn.:·Tsu l(ow v. Republic or Chinn, 201 F.2d 105 (D.O.Cir.1052), cert. den. 345 U. S. 025, 'i3 S.Ot. iS4 (1053). See also Nntional City Bank v. Republic of China. 348 U.S. :t56. i5 S.Ct. 423 (1955) (Involving a counter claim); Russian Gov;,-ernment v. Lehigh Valley n. R.. 293 F.l33 (S.D.N.Y. 1919) : Varga v. Credlt·Suisse. 5 A.D.2d 289, 171 N.Y.S.2d 674 (1958) (exiled Hungarian president not a. sovereign). Principality of lIonaco v. liissisSiPPi. 292 U.S. 313, 5-1 S.Ct. i45 (103i) (sutt against state of the Union without consent). See Hart nod Wechsler, The Federal Courts and the Feder41 System (1053) 236 ft.


3. Ja.panese Government v. Commercial Cas. IDS. Co.• 101 F.Supp. 248 (S.D.N.Y.l951). 4. Id. at 246. S. Friedmann, A Comparative Analysts, The Public Corporation, Symposium (1954) 541, 560.

See also Ehrenzwelg·Ikehara-Jensen, American-J'ap. anese PrIvate International Law (1962, forthcoming) Co 3fA); R~·17o-11L But see Dade Drydock Corp. v. The MIT Yar Oarlbe, 199 F.Supp. an (S.D. Te%.l961) j and generally LubDWl, The Unrecogn.ized

6.. Argentine Alrllnes v. Aircraft Dynamics Corp., 9 Mlsc.2d 272, 170 N.Y.S.2d 600 (1957).

practical considerations have generally deprived the foreign guardian of his right to sue outside the state of his appointment. One could conceivably argue that his standing to be sued extraterritorially is distinguishable on the ground that it would more gravely impair the appointing court's interest in a centralized administration of the ward's estate. But where the guardian's passive incapacity has in fact been asserted, this' assertion is apparently based on a doubtful analogy to the standing of the foreign administrator.1 Such judicial authority as there exists seems to favor the foreign guardian's suability.3
I. ConcerniDg the curator· absentis, see supra I 14 note 11. See also In re Lutts' Estate, 2 Utah 2d 160, 270 P.2d on (1954) (Greece). As to minors and Incompetent persons, see supra § l3·notes 14 ft.


19-20 (vacant).

2. Goodrich 580. See supra pp. 46 f: Stumberg 437. 3. Tbe onlY case adduced In support of the opposite conclusion (Goodrich 580) Is Jones v. Shields, 14 OhIo 359 (1846). ThIs declslon, without passing upon the court's jurlsdictlon or the guardian's procedural capacity, gaV& judgment In assumpsit on the, 11lerlts, while indicating the possiblUty of proceed· lngs In' equity. See, on'the other hand, Pickering v. DeRocbemont, 4ISN.H. 67 (1863)' permitting a ward to sue his foreign appointed guardian upon


I._ See Goodrich 592.

e. g. united States v. Crocker, 194 F .supp. 860, 862 (D.O.Nev.1961).




CAOO.l.V s:J

V~ ..........- - -

be prosecuted, therefore, or they require at

obtained a judgment in Missouri against an Dlinoisassociation, although an Dlinois court had appointed a liquidator for the de(a) Here as in the case of personal rep- fendant subsequent to the commencement of the action, and although the liquidator, who resentatives (§ 23), passive capacity exists was a statutory successor under IDinois law as to the prosecution of rights in rem ac(p. 56), had instructed counsel to withdraw quired prior to the appointment of- the refrom the case. In the minois liqUidation, a ceiver, though even here the creditor may claim upon the Missouri judgment had been have to obtain leave from the appointing urt.3 disallowed inter alia because it had been co obtained "in a proceeding to which the D(b) Secondly, the foreign receiver may be linois liquidator was not a party and could sued as to any assets wrongfully removed not have been made one." 8 But the Court from the forum state, or wasted or convert- held the judgment entitled to full faith and ed there though rightfully removed; 4 or as credit and discounted the dissenters' concern to any contract entered into, or tort commit- for "a unified liquidation administration" and ted in, his capacity as receiver.a the "burden to the liquidator of defending (c) Moreover, the inaccuracy of the tradi- suits anywhere." 9 Instead, the Court emtiona! "jurisdictional" rationalization of the phasimi the "hardship on the Missouri credireceiver's incapacity appears. from the fact tor if he were forced to drop his Missouri that his incapacity, like that of the personal litigation, bring his witnesses to Dlinois, and representative, may be waived. G start all over again." 10 least authorization by the appointing court! Several reservations, however, are in order. Finally the SUpreme Court has thrown .§ 23. Personal representatives _ The ~me light on the :eceiver's ~ture. s~ding . l'Q.Ie, Its history and rationale. The ninem the case of MorriS v. Jones.' Plamtiff had . teenth century proposition that the administrator legally "does not exist" outside the 2. Bnrnette T. WeUR Fargo Nevoda Nat. Bank. 2;0 state of his appointment,1 has been shown U.S. <:138, 4" !=:.Ct. 32G (1020): Lion nondin:: Co. T. Knrat%, 2G:! U.S. ii, SS, 43 S.Ct. 4SO, 48-1 (023); to have found decisive support in the writE,-nnf: ,'. III1noi!: Surety Coo, SIn lll. ]O~. H!l N.E. ings and judicial opinions of Kent and Story SO'.! (l!l:!:i). (lI!;Cu~cl in )Iorrls Y. Jones, 3211 C.S. 54a, 540. Gi S.Ct. 4Gl, 454 (104;)_ ~ec nlso Atty. (§ 14). Although analytically hardly tenable 0t>11. \". Kupl'emc CounCil, 100 Moss. nil, Sl N.E_ 900 and foreign to early common law thought, (100i I; In re Internatlona) llelll~tlrance Co.. 2!l Del. Cll. 34. 48 A.:M 5:m (lMO,; Chapman. Sult!'l aJ:nlnst this proposition still seems to preclude the Federal Equity Receivers, 13 Vn.L.ne,·. 34a (102;); foreign administrator from bringing suit, nest. 1 571; Annos., 96 A.L.R. 485, 168 A.L.lt Gn. notwithstanding growing statutory and -ju3. See Rest. § 574(2). dicial exceptions which in the course of time 4. Rest. § 5;2. promise to become the rule. It is highly 5. Here. too, leave from the appointing court mar be doubtful, however, whether the alleged coun8. Morris T. Jones. 82{) U.S. 545, 554, 562, 67 S.Ct. 451,




of this rule is still the law, i. e., the that "no action can be mainagainst any administrator outside the of his appointment upon a claim iRJnUllSt the estate of the decedent" 2 Like :first TUle, this proposition lacks histori·support.3 In addition it cannot .even be =rationalized by that need for the protection ·domestic creditors which at one time was to jUstify denial of the foreign adminis~+or's standing to sue. The argument usuadvanced for deiiying him standing to 'sued has been that execution of a judgsecured against a foreign representacould not be subjected to that "orderly -lj)l'OCeSS of administration" which requires ~-4D1'Ovision for "a method of proving claims; order in which they shall be paid;" and 'proper basis for apportionment if the as_lSets are insufficient to pay aD claims." 4 But ·:"tbe appointment of an anc;illary~$".a­ :tor, which would be 'required~:tbe-;a1lijied ~capacity rule, wouid·~ -liiims, since such an administ:ii~~­ ··:·:-;£~k~

pelled to cooperate with the principal administration. a Lacking both an analytical and practical reason, the alleged rule of passive incapacity has, except in specific situations, been actually applied by only a minority of courts. s As will be more fully shown below, the foreign administrator's suability will be denied primarily where the court does not wish to exercise its jurisdiction over a mere transient without having a sufficient contact with the case. In this sense the incapacity rule serves the same purpose served elsewhere by the doctrine of forum non conveniens (§ 35). Otherwise, contrary to the traditional assumption, foreign administrators and executors can ordinarily be sued. And they can be sued not only upon "new causes of 'action", 'I but generally like any other in-


required. Barton \". Barbour, 104 U.S. 120 (1881). But sec Justice Miller's dissent ld. at 141; and in general Olark, English and American Theories of BeceJvers' LlabWties, 27 ColL.Rev. 679 (1927); Rest. 15746. Husbands T. Aetna Indem. Co.. 93 Conn. 194, 105 A. 480 (1919); Von Boston v. United Rys. of St. LouiS, 8 F.2d 826 (8th Oir. 1926); Jerome T. McCarter, 94 U.S. 734 (1876). See also supra § 15, Dotes 28 fl. i infra 123 note 18. 7. Morris \". Jones, 829 U.S. 545, 67 S.Ot. 451 (1947). Of. Comments, 4; ColL.Re\'. 640 (1947); 95 U.Pa.L. Bel'. 791 (1947); 42 1ll.L.Re\'. 223 (1947).

457, 461 (1947) (dissent). 9. Id. at 563. 10. Id. at 554.. For an attempt at reconciliation see the Uniform Insurers Liquidation Act. 9B U.L.A. (195'1) 151, adopted in 19 states (Supp.l961). I. "The foreign administrator as the offieial of another sovereignty exists only by virtue of the statute of another state, and l\as no legal existence In this state." McMaster v. Gould, 240 N.'t. 879, 885, 148 N.E. 556, 55S (1925); AnD~., 40 A.L.R. 79&

5. ExC<'pt If the estate is Insolvent. Of. ReM. § [i0!!; Nndclmann. InROlvent Decedents' Estntes. 49 MlchL.Re\". ll2n (1951). Tbe additional reason ~h'en for tbe nUeJled rule. [3 Beale. Conflict of Lnwf; (1D.1r., 1553] thot tIle admlnlRtrator mlJlht otherwlR(> lie subjected to n foreign law, Is less thon compclllnJ: In view of tile prevnlllng cbolce of lnw rulc o!O· ,mrlng gt>neral appllcntioll of tht' deet>dent·" domi· -~ Rest. § 512. The two facets of tho~JJI!iJstI!Bee" ciliary lo\\,. Chentbam. Tilt' Stntutor;\' SUC('('f:MOr, · ,axiom have often found distinct treatnmllt. -.Almost tbe Receh'cr and tile Executor ill Conflict of Lnw!' • . ' .a century elapsed before the ~lnnr,-.lJo1Ul8jbeen 4.J Co1.1...11e\·. r~!l (1944); GoodrIcll 5tH ; Comment, · abjected to suit, also recelved.the~~r 6G Col.l...lte,·. 915. 918 (1900); and in Jronernl M('- ·'the estate. Sec suprn § -140 -DOte-~,,;aJso Dowell, op cit. supra § 14 note 2, at ;0 ff. Vaughan T. Northup, 1:; Pet.:(40 ~~r:ama. · -lyzlng the Act of Congress of-Jnne~:j812;~;ll (2.. 6. In detenninln:: the mnjorlo- vie"" statutory Inw U.S.Stat. 700, 758), by ,,·hlch·foreil!I1 :aanunistratol'l! mUf;t he taken into nccount w)lcre an alle~ed ('(1m· 'Were permltted to sue In the DIRtrlct. of Columbln mon )0'" rule to tile contrary merely superlK'dec) '. 'Without being sunble there. Among mollenl cascs, all older ('Ol1l1non Inw, now III ef1'ct't l'('!'Itored h~' h.'::- .?Bee Davis v. Smith, 125 F.Supp. 134, 130 (De1.1054); is)atloll. See supra § 14 notes 200'. FOl- a detaileu · Greer v. Ferguson, 00 Ark. 324, 10 S.W. 000 (1802). annlysis r;cc Infra note 17. - For a critical analysis see Bolt. Extension of Non· -llesfdent Motorist Statutes, etc., 101 tJ.Pa.L.lle\". 7. "An action can be broup:ht against a foreign ad· ministrator upon an obligation contracted by him ~ 28S (1052); McDowell, op. cit. supra § 14 note [sec e.~. Jobnston T. Wallls. 112 N.Y. 230, 19 N.l::. ~ at 79 if.. 114653 (1889) 1. or to recover damalles for nny "'rOn~ done by him, in tile administration of the estate." . i8. Early English cases hnve erroneously been as. Best. § 5lG. Be is, In particular, subject to actions · 4W:Ded to oPPose amenablllty to suit. Jauncey v. for waste and conversion [Co)bert v. Daniel, 82 Ala. · -Bealey, 1 Vern. 897, 23 Eng.Rep. 541 (011.1686) [relied 814 (1858); Clopton T. Booker. 27 Ark. 482 (lSi!!); 'UpOn for this proposltion by Buchanan and Myers, Falke v. Terry, 32 Colo. 85, 'i'U P. 42l:i (1903»): or .~pra § 15 Dote I, at 9251 is not In point; and upon a judgment [Michigan Trust Co. T. Ferry, 22S l::dale's Oase, 6 00. 4Gb, Ti Eng.Bep. S23 (O.P. U.S. 840. S8 S.Ot. 550 (1918); White '\". ArcbblJl. 2 ) Is to the contrary. See Westlake, Private In. Sneed (Tenn.) 588 (l855) 1. The oldest type of ca~ 1ernatloDal Law C5th ed.1912) 134. But ct. Tyler v. here pertinent are those involving a foreJgn ('x· ~ell, 2 MYlne « Ora.tg 89, llO, 40 Eng.Rep. 57", 5S8 ecutor de son tort. See 1 Oumyns, DIgest of tll( ~); DIcey's Rule 182; Ob~lre 5:);. On early erican authority, see infra Dote S. Laws of Eng)and (5th ed.l822) 4481f. j CampbeU '-. Tousey, 7 Cow. 63, 6; (N.'t.1827); Da'\"ls v. Conne)· . . Goodrich 565. See also GoodrIch, Problems of It's Ex'rs, B.Mon. (43 Ky.) 186 (1848,. 'This rule Ip ~~r Administration, 39 Harv.L.Bev. 70;, 818 DOW largely statutory. For an elaborate definition see S.Oar. Code 1952, § 19.611. Foreign represenw-



. J





COUl,~ "--

dividuals, subject only to the rules governing personal' jurisdiction. This rule, having been part of colonial and early American common law,8 has now [after an interval of non-suability probably caused by legalistic identification of active and passive capac.. ity],9 been widely restored. At least eight states have, with or without modifications, established by statute the foreign administrator's general standing' to be sued. IO At least seven states have recog..
tlves were held suable ns trustees (§ 15) e..:. In In re Barrett's Estate, 206 l(lsc. 30.1, 132 ~.1.~.2d ii:ii:i (195ol) : Patton v. Overton, S Humph. (21 Tenn.) 102 (1841). For a case involving life insurance Proceeds, see Cramer \". Phoenix lIut. Life Ins. Co., 01 F.2d l·U, 141 (8th Cir. 1031), cert. den. 302 U.S. i30, 58 S.Ct. 141 (1031).

nized this standing with regard to the ably most important) case of the aec::~etfE!Jlt;: non..resident motorist. U At least twelve oth. er states have a common law recOglliziJrut: general personal. jurisdiction either upon mere service 13 within the state or upon con..
(1053) ; North Dakota Cent.Code Ann f ao-,94-18 (1060) ; Ohio Rev.Code Ann. f 2113.10 (BaidWln 1038) : Oklahoma Stat.Ann. tit. 58. § 262 (1037) (permissive) ; Wisconsin StaUDn. § 281.16 (1058). The New York statute (Consol. Laws, c. 13, § 160) \vns repenloo in 1026, having been held unconstitn~ionnl In th! nbsence of assets. lIelInster v. Gould. _40 N.Y. 3.0, J.J8 Y.E. i:iOO (1025). The Arizona _ court seems \\'i1Ung to follow suit in refusing to. ~nterp~t literally Arizona Code Ann. If 21-i03. 21~ (1~30~. _ Fnrnsworth v. Hubbard, i8 ariz. 160, .!1. P._d lll2, :?a1 (105·1). Similar hostility against t~: lI~ral doctrine is evidenced in Davis v. Smith, 1_01 Ii .~upP. 134 tDeJ.I05-l) constroing the ancient OOla,:aro statute ItS limited to ncth'e capacity. Bat see cral.1t ,'. The Toledo, Ann arbor &: North ltlch. It•.co.••J Ohio Dec. 146 (1895), upboldlng Wl early Obl~ stU!~te; In re FeltrineJU's Estate, laD N.Y.S.· 2d 003, 01.4 (Surr.1056).

63 PASSIVE CAPACITY § 23 sent by appearance or otherwise.13 And mit the administrator to be substituted as a what appears as the majority of the remain.. defendant in a suit commenced during the _ing jurisdictions ~ll p~t ~e fo~i~ a~.. decedent's life time. Ie Whether a judgment ministrator to be sued if he IS dOlDlclled m- so recovered is entitled to full faith and cred.. the forum state 14 or if the suit concerns as- it in the state of appointment is a different sets brought into that state.15 Many will per.. question, discussed in connection with the troublesome problem of privity between sevessee ex reL Leggett, 08 lIIss. 841, 54 So. 43-l eral administrators (§ 64). But this much fIOll)] ; and Tennessoe [WhIttaker v. Whittaker, 18 TenD. 03 (1882)] base their adberence to wbat is seems certain: those cases usually relied uphere coasldered the majority role on considerations on to defeat the foreign administrator's ot Justice. standing to be sued, which are not super13 Goodrich 563 quotes with npprovlll from Jefrer- seded by later developments, are limited to a ~n v. Beall, 117 Ala. 43B. 23 So. 44 (18OS): "Consent cannot gil·e such Jurisdiction, or extend the small minority of states,11 and in addition
llmlted autborlty of the administrator ~ extraterritorial acts resultinlt In judgmflnts agnllll't tbe assets of tbe estate." But the U. S. Supreme Court in Lawrence V'. Xelson, 143 U.S. 215. ~, 12 S.Ct. 440 442 (1802) has decided otherwise, ItS hn\'e the cou~t.c; of many states. Bro\vn v. Brown, 35 :\Ilnn. 191, 28 N.W. 238 (1886); BrO\vn v. Hughes. 136 F. Supp. 55 (Y.D.Pa.195W; Leigbton \'. Roper, 300 Y.Y. 434, 01 N.E.2d Si6 (10-;:;0). Older federal cn~ for [e. g. Lackner v. lIcKechney. :!52 F. ~03, -lOS (1th Clr.l0l8)] and against the possibility of waiver [eo g. Burrowes v. Goodman, so. F.2d 02 (2d Cir. 1981), cert. den. ~ U.S. 600. ;j2 :i.Ct. :W (1031).1' have lost conclusiveness .tn the light of the ErIe doctrine requiring the application of stnte law. And such state cnses, generally cited tor the older view, as Judy v. KellY, 11 m. 211. 00 .\m.Dee.. 400 (1849) or Greer v. Ferguson, 56 Ark. 324. 10 S.W. 966 (1892) are probably no longer slgDificnnt in ,·iew of superseding statutes (supra note 10). See also tor tbe view in the text. Trostees of Princeton Unlverslty v. Trust Co., :!2 Y.J. 58;, 1Zi A.2d 10 (1956); Bowles v. R. G. Dun-Bradstreet Corporation, 25 Del.Cb. 321, 12 A.2d 302 (1040), as interpreted Downing v. HOWard. 68 F.Supp. 6 tD.C.DeJ.l046) [but see Davis v. Smith, 125 F.Supp. 134 (D.O.Del.lD54)]; Brown v. Hugbes. 136 F.Supp. 55 (lLD.Pa..lD5;j); Gamble v. Dawson, 61 Wash. 12, l2() P. 1()6() (1912) : Callwood v. Virgin Islands Nat. Bank. 221 F.2d 770, 778 (3d O1r.1055) (German executor). See also Anno., 71 A.L.R. 251. 14. See e. g. Colbert v. Daniel, 32 Ala. 314 (1858); Johnson v. Jackson•. 56 Gn. 326 (1816); McAndrews v. Kranse. 245 1I1nn. 85. n N.W.2d 153 (10M); Note, [1053] U.ru.L.For. 764 (also usets within forum. state. infra note 15).
15. "Foreign administrators and executors may be

Brynn v. ll'Gee, Fed.Cns.No.2,066 (C.C.D.Pa.. 1808); Cnmpbell. v. Tousey, i Cow. 64 (N.Y.lS21); lIcNumara v. D'vyer, i Paige 211) (N.Y.lS38): Tunstall v. Pollard, 11 Leigb 1 (\·a.lSW); Swenringen ". Pendleton, 4 S. &: R. 380 (Pa.l818); Evans v. Tatem. 0 S. &: R. :!S2 (Pn.l823). Apparently the only early cases to the contrary nre lIassachusetts II. See e. g. N.Y. Vehicle and Traffie Law § 253. Suell:' cases linked to statutes requiring anCillary ndminlssta.tutes Il~e generally held constitutional. trntlon. ~tevens v. Gaylord, 11 lIass. :!Sa 11814). O"rntt v. Garretson, !!05 Ark. 7'02. 111 S.W.2d ~electmen of Boston v. Boylstone, 2 lla~. ;!s4 . . (1043); PJopa v. Dn Pres 321 Mich 660 42 N (1801). 3 Beale. Condlct of Laws (1005) lW2. cites dye cases decided prior to 1850, none of which supi i i (10'".M»; Farone v. Habel, 22 N.J:13, i!?3l.i.d 508-(1056) ;_ Jacobs v. Rothstein, !!3 ~.J. 64l, 130 A.2d:~ POrts bls position: Holcom v. Pbelps, 16 Conn. 121 ~ (1001): I..eigbton v. Roper. 300 ~.Y• .J34. 01 N.E. (1844) (decision on men" in solt on Xew York _d Si6 (1000); Tarczrnski v. Cbicago ete R. judgment as· to jurisdiction of rendering court). 261 Wis. 140, 52 ~.W.2d 306 (1932);' Gne~ ~ Curle v. lIoor, 1 Dann 415 (Ky.l833) (to the con: trary, boldlng suits in equity penni.Bible "upon apCbapa \". Allen, 110 F.Supp. 120 (SoD TOJr.19M)' Brooks \'. Nat. Bank, 251 l!'.2d 3i (Sth' Clr 1958) propriate tacts"); Borden v. Borden, 5 llnss. 61 (MIssouri); ~tate v. Cross. 314 S.W.2d (Mo. (1809) (Involving execution against tbe decedent's rea' estate In the torum); VermUya. v. Beatty. 6 1~). But see Knoop v, Anderson, 11 F.Supp. S32, Barb. 420 (N'.Y.l848) (expressly limited to court ot 845 (Iowa 1041): Feldman v. Gross, 106 F Snpp. 308 (N:,D.ObIO 1~2); Hunt v. Tague, 205 lId. 369, law and conceding possible equity role to the con109 '\.2d 80 (lD54) (substitution)' Fazio v Am. trary); Garden v. Hunt, Cheves Eq. 42 (S.Car.1840) (non-resident executors appOinted in the forum Aut. .Ins. Co., 136 F.Supp. 184 (W.D.La.1055) (~tatu­ tory lDterpretatiOll). In general see Holt, Extension 8tate not subject to jurisdiction In the absence ot ot Non-Resident Motorist Statutes to Non-Resident botb personal Jurisdiction and nasets \Vitbln the Personal Representatives, 101 U.Pa.L.Rev. 223state). Evans v. Tatem, 0 Serg. &: Rawle 252 (Pa (1952) ; Scott, Hess and PaWloski Carry On Of 1823) Is properly cited as being contrary to tbe HarvL.B:v. OS· (1050); McDowell, OPe cit. Sup~ f l«:,ged geoera~. rule. But see VaUghan v. Northup, 14 note ... at 114 fl.: Leflar, Condlce of Laws 33 15 Pet. 1. 5 (1841) (decided by Story, J. upon anN.Y. U.L.Rev. 131, 153 (1058) ("common-se~") • alytical grounds, I 14. note 3".l); and Campbeil v Note, 36 Iowa L.Rev. 128 (1951). See 1Dtra f 28 no~ . Sbeldon, 13 PIck. 8 (Mass.I832), cited by. GOOdrich 29; Comment, [19581 WlsL.Rev. 425. 562. That early law· was at least "inconsistent," was concluded in Farnsworth v. Hubbard, is ArJz. 12. Pennsylvania [GlampaJo v. Tatlor, 385 Pa. 121, 160. 277 P.2d· 2lS2. 255 (1035). 6 A.2d 499 (1939) (see also Evans v. Tatem. 9 Se $; See supra note 2. Beale, Progress of the Law & RawJe 252 (1823)]; Goorgla [Johnson v. Jacks! 91 9-20. 34 Harv.L.Rev. 50, 62 (1D20) considers it 56 Go.. 328. 328 (1816): ''The polley ot the state Is ~ impossible to render a personal Judgment agafnst turn1sb ber own people witb a remedy to recover' a torelgn representative." their rigbts in their own courts'1; Kentucky (KeJn" Jngham v. Keiningham's EX'r: 139 Ky: 666 71 .'0. Iowa Code Ann. f 32L498 (19158); Kansas Gen. S. W. 491 (1903); Russey v. S~t, 116 iry. 15 Stat.Ann. I 59-1108 (1949); New .. Jersey Stat.4nn S.W. 211 (1903): se& also Paine's Estate 128 FJ § 3A:12-1 (19lS3); New· Mexico Stat.Ann, § 31-2-9 151. 114 So. 430 (1931)]. Mississippi (Cu~r v. Tena:






sued in the same manner as nonresidents. but only wben the subject-matter subjects tbem to the JuriSdiction." Helme v. Buckelew, 220 N.Y. 363, 12& N.E. 216 (1920). See also, Leighton v. Roper, 300 N.Y. -134, 91 N.E.2d 816 (1050) ("assets ot the estate within this state"). ACCOrd, lIcAndrews v. Krause, 245 Mlno. 8lS. 71 N.W.2d 153 (1965); Anno.• 53 AL.R.2d 323 (1951). Some states with general statutes (supra note- 10) have llmlted their apPUcabUlty to. such cases. Ct. FarDsworth v. Hubo bard. 78 ariz. 160. 211 P.2d 252 (1954) (distinguish-

able as involving an executor in a foreign country and a competing domestic administrator): ~ational Bank of Topeka \'. llltcbell. 154 Kan. 276. 118 P.2d 510 (l041); Babbitt v. Fidelity Trust Co., 10 N'.J.E~_ UiJl.63 A. IS (1006). And some ha"e ndded n quosIIn-rem limitation. York v. Bank of Commerce &: Trost Co., 10 Tenn.app. 594. D3 S.W.2d 333 (1035). Colorado [Falke v. Terry, 32 Colo. 8;;, iij P. 425 ftOO3)]: VifJtinia [Tunstall v. Pollard's Adm'r. 38 Va. (11 Leigh) 1 (1SW); Fugate \". lloore. ~ Va. 1045, 11 S.E. 1063 (1800»; and West Virginia rOney v. FefJ:USon. -11 W.Vn. 568, 5n. 23 S.E. ilO. ill (1805)] at lenst seem to assume jurisdiction wbere the assets bad been brought into the state by the admiDistrntor. as does Xortb Carolina (Groome v. Leatherwood, 240 N.C. 513, 83 S.E.2d 536 (lOS.m. See nIso Courtney v. Prndt. 160 F. 561 (6th Clr.100s). app.dlsm. 106 U.S. SO. 25 S.Ot. 203 (1005) (dictum: Kentucky law permits suit against adminlstrntor wbo has "removed" to the state); Callwood v. Virgin Islands ~at. Bank. 221 F.2d no. ji8 (3d Cir.1D5G) even ns to a civUlaw executor; see I H, note 10. Attachment proceedings are clearly permissible. Sylvania Industrial Corp. v. LUienfeld's Estate, 132 F.2d 881 (4th Cir. 1043). See generally Anno•• 53 A.L.R.2d 323. 16. Anno.• 11 A.L.R. 251, :!S6. But see Appeal of Gantt, 2SB app.Dlv. 212, 141 N.Y.S.2d 138 (1955); Cosgrove v. Welerman, 3 A..D.2d 0010. 163 ~.Y.S.2d 1005 (1061). The right to amend will be determined under tbe lex fori. lIartin v. Talcott, 1 A..D.2d 610, 146 N.Y.S.2d 784 (1055). See also infra § 21 at note 32. Iovino v. Waterson, 214 F.2d 41 (2d Cir. ID5D), cart. den. 362 U.S. 940. 80 S.Ot. 860 (1060) determines the question under the Federal Rules disregarding New York law to the contrary. 17. Buchanan and lIyers. Tbe Administration of Intangibles. etc., 48 Harv.L,Rev. 911, 021, 030 (1935) in tbelr comprehensive compilation of those authorities which purportedly support an incapacity rule, list decIsIons from 22 states giving "a negative answer generally" to the question ot suabUlty of foreign admlnl8tr'ators. Bnt the authors concede that decisions lD 13 of those sta.tes "on occasion, for exceptional reasons, permit suit." Re-examination of these authorities in tbe lIgbt of later statute and case la.w. produces the following. result: Tbe stat·






·imum jurisdictional contacts" U wlll beap.. plied in exercising statutory authority .for, the taking of jurisdiction, and may yet become decisive even in the absence of ·such Exceptions. Under the transient rule a authority. In this respect residence of the defendant served with process within the parties and witnesses, the applicable law, state may be subjected to the personal ju- and the origin of the cause of action have risdiction of a court which lacks any contact been stressed,19 in close analogy to tests apwith the case. As to both foreign corpora- plied in determining the convenient forum tions and foreign administrators, passive in other cases (§ 35).20 procedural incapacity seems to have been resorted to as a corrective of this rule. As ·18. Jacobs T. Rothstein, 23 N.J. 64l, 130 A.2d 3S4 (19~. to corporations this corrective has long been 19. Ibid. replaced by the adoption of minimum stand- 20. The most frequent situation wbere the problem of transient jurisdiction "'111 arise is probably that ards of "fair play" (§ 33). In the case of of a nonresident 'l"ho attempts to aTall himself of foreign administrators, however, courts are tile nonresident ·motorlst statute (5 28) at the place of injury, and ta'les to obtain jurisdiction over a still groping for such a common denominafOreign administrator by service upon the state oftor. Lack of both domiclle and assets withficer appointed for this purpose. Wbere the statute authorizing this procedure bas been held uncon· in the forum state, on the one hand, is likestltutlonnl (supra note ll), tbe plalntttr wlll baTe ly to cause the court to decline jurisdiction to seek appointment of 811 ancillary administrator. Tbis. howel"er, \\"'111 raise problems If the only aswith or without reference to the incapacity set elalmed to be In the state Is the decedent's Indoctrine. On the other hand, "considerasurance claim. UsuallF licenslng of the Insurer in . the state bas been beld to be the test for the situs tions of convenience and comity" and "minutes and cnJ::e laws of Arkansas. Geor;tla. DUnols, Kentucky. 1I11chllmn. lIltsslsslppi, New JelWY, Pennsylvanin and Tennessee stated supra ·lD notes 10ft'., preclude Inclusion of tbese states. As to Connec:t1cut and New 'Iork see supra notes S. 10. Alabnma can hardly be conslder('d as a nOIl-capacit"1 state since Ala. Code 1940, Title 01, § luI, permlt.<; tbe administrator to sue "'Ithout re-appolntment upon filing his letters and posting bond rcr. 1Ilurphee T. Starrett, 231 Ala. 123. 103 So. (Hj (10aa)]. See also S.Car.Code (l1l:t2) § 19-000; North Carolina Gen. Stat. (194!1) ~ 28.&i rGroome T. Leatberwood, 240 N.C. 5;3, S3 S.E.2d uaG (105·!)]. Colorado la\\" is in(!onclusll'e. Falke l'. Terry. 32 Colo. 85, 70 P. 42ij (1003). cited for the alleged rule, contains a dictum pemlittin;: suit under certnln circumstances. Ollly Florida Isce also lJyers ' .. Ferris, 91 }'1a. 008, 109 So. 209 (1920)]; LouiSiana [see also Hargrave T. Turner Lumber Co., 194 La. 285, 193 So. 648 (1940)] ; Missouri [see also Blll T. Barton, 194 Mo.App. 325, 188 S.W. 110u (1916)]; Massachusetts [see supra note S, also Feeney,·. Feeney. 140 llass. 034, 140 N.E.2d 642 (1057); Derrick T. New England Greybound Lines, 148 F.Supp. 496 (D.C.Mass.l9M)]; Texas [see also Michigan Trust Co. T'. Turney. 36 S.W.2d 'lSi (Tex.Ch·.App.l931): Pirkle T. Cassity, 104 F. Supp. 318 (E.D.Tex.l952)]; Utah [WUeax T. Dlst. Ot.. 2 Utah 2d 227, 272 P.2d 15; (19M)]; V1rgln1a {sUll limited to Fugate T. Moore, 8G Va. 1045, 11 S.E. 1003 (1890) but see also supra note 15): West V1rglnla [Wlrgman T. ·Pro,·ldent Life & Trust Co.. '19 W.Va. 1562,92 S.E. 415 (1917) but see supra note 15] seem to have reslsted the general trend. . of the claim. Liberty T. Kinney, 242 Iown 050, 47 N.W.2tl S3u (1051): Estnte of Fagin, 240 Jown 490, OG N.W.2d 020 (1054) [Note 41 Jowa L.ltc'·. 144 (l!l:-t5)): In rc Kreso"lch's Estate, lOS Neb. 073, OJ l\.W~d 239 (1959): Robinson l". Dana's Estate, 8i N.H. 114. li4 A. 772 (1934); Kimbell T. SmUll, Go! N.M. 3;4, 32S P.2cl 942 (1058); In re Rlmtle's Will, 11 A.D.2cl 01, 200 N.'I.S.2c119 (1900). But sec In re Ro,rers' ERtatc, 164 Knn. 402, 100 P.2d 8:jj (lMS); Wbent v. Fidelity «Casualty Co., 128 Colo. :!aG, 261 P.2d 493 (lOa8); Estate of W-ilcox. 137 N.E.2d 301 (Obio App.1r05); infra § 26 note n3. nut even this test, precarious at best because of its lack of connection "'it11 the ca~. may not suffice Sf the court feels that its jurisdiction is sougbt for the purpose of obtalnin!: n more fa"orable forum. In rc llache's Estate, 10 N.J. 5iO, 100 A.2d GW (10M). See also United States l". llcDonald Grain &. :-:;ecd Co., 13.i !-'. Supp. S54 (N.D.I0aa): BendrIck T'. Ilossltcr, lw F. Supp. 44 (S.D.Ga.195;); and in general 31 AL.R.2d 1270, 1275. Even where there is doubt as to wbether a sister state court would recognize a judgment against an administrator appointed in the absence of fOMlm assets (insurer issuing the policy lacking license), the court may find 1t proper to make such an appointment. In re Leigh's Estate, 6 Utab 2d 209, 31S P.2d 4'55 (1957). Infra 5 63. See also Estate of Breese, 51 Wash.2d 802, 317 P.2d 1055 (19<>1) wbere an insurance claim was beld to exist "wberever it can be enforced," and therefore to be"an 'asset' sufficient to support the appointment of an adminlstrator," if the Insurer is''c!oing business in the state. See in general McDowell, Ope cit. supra § 14 note 2, at 87ft.; Comment, 12 Stanl.L.Rev. 66S (1900); Anno.. 67 .A..L.R.2d 932 (1959).

.quite often explainable.as designed to· ob'viate abuse of the transient rule of ,personal jurisdiction.

a. natural man, then, the: dissolution of.a corporation ends its life. Under this. theory dissolution is said to occu~ ~upon the disap':1 ~ General corporate theorY having at pearance of all its members or of an essenlimited the "existence" ,of '8. corpora- tial member; 3 the surrender by it of its to the state of its creation,1 has grad- property or of its charter; 4 or by forfeicome to concede its "presence" in a ture.' But while as to natural man eat'ly in which it is doing business or can, for law had the choice between escheat of his reasons, in faimess be held to the ob- property upon death and devolution to his . -ligations imposed on· other persons (§ 12). heirs (§ 14), corporate law, at -leaSt as to ":l'his development has been parallel to a realty and leaseholds, favored in varying de~-=-imillar one conceming individuals. But ju- grees reverter to the "donor." e Concern for ~.1rllsdilcticln over individuals has developed pri, -marily in terms of personal jurisdiction based 3. Coke on Littleton 13b: BlaCkstone Commentar.on proper service. It has seemed apIes (Jones ed. 1915), Book I, 40i a.This proposition is no lonll'er valid Ofl to the modern business corpo-:propriate, therefore, to deal with the deration with transferable shares. velopment of the passive procedural capacity See of Norwich's ·"fQf corporations more fully under the head- 4. 273b, Dean .and Obapter (1580):· .. . .• Case, 3 Dyer 73 Eng.Rep. 612 • by the ing of personal jurisdiction, in accord with In'ant of all the possetU;IOllf: or. a dean and cllapter their corporation Is· det(>rmlneCJ. InasmuC'll as they ·1he traditional, though analytically imperought to have a place for tbelr nssembling." Sub~ect, treatment of this tOpic (§ 33). sequently, bowever. the rule was settled that the :OOBPORATIONS .AND ·OTHER ASSOCIAT.IONS Once 'the presence of a foreign corporaCion in the forum state for purposes of pera>nal service has been ascertained, there rethe question of determining the prop.~. e person to be served on behalf of the cor'~l ,poration. This is a procedural question subject to the lex fori. But while this deter-:.~ mination is fairly clear as a general proposi'tion, it becomes difficult where the foreign corporation bas been dissolved
surrender of prope1't,- alone did not dissoll"(> the corporatlon because of Its contlnulnJ1;· duties. Dean and Chapter of NO""ich's CaRe, 3 C-o.ltep. 7Ss, 70 Eng.Bcp. 703 (15!J8): R. T. Maror of l..ondon, 12 )fod. 17. 19, R8 Eng.Bep. 113li. 1186 (1692), Surrender requires tbc state's consent [Boston Glass Manufactory T. LanJ1;don, 24 l)ick. .(41 l\l1lSS.) 49, 63 (1834)]. and, dependlDg on statutOJ'F regulation. consent of all or the majority of sbarebolders.
5. See 9 BoldRWOrth, History of English Law (1026) 6G concerning the political background of -the hi .... tory of this subject. Regarding constitutional limitations existing in American ls\\",see Trustees of Dartmouth College T. Woodward, 4 Wbeat. (17 U.S.) 518 (1819); Denham, An Historical Del"elopment ot the Contract Theory In the Dartmouth College Case, 'j Mlch.L.ReT. 201 (1900); Dodd, Dissenting Stockbolders and Amendments to Corporate Charters, 75 U.Pa.L.BeT. 5&i, 723 (1927). In addition, courts of equity may wind up a corporation In a process of liquidation without formal dissolution. Sec e. g. Nasbdlle Packet Co. T. Neville, 144 TenD. 698, 23V S.W. 64 (1921). Forfeiture of the rigbt to do business may entail loss of the right to sue and defend, thougb leaving the corporation's legal title Intact. Purcel T. Wells, 236 F.2d 469 (lOth Oir. 1956).

.'. .mams



History. The "idea that the corporation is to be treated as far as possible like a natura) man is the only theory about the per·~nality of corporations that the common law has ever possessed." 2 Like the death of
I. Ct. Middlebrooks T. Springfield Fire Ins. Co., 14 Conn. 801 (1841); St. Olalr T. Cox, 106 U.S. 350, 1 S.Ct. 854 (1882); Henderson, POSition of Foreign Corporations in American Constitutional Law (1918) 77 ; Lepaulle, De 1n condition des socieb$ etran~ aUl: llltats-Unis d'Am~rlque (1923); Rlgaud. 8 TravaUl: (1937) 11; Batlffol, 9 TravaUl: (1953) lSi; Infra § 145.

' ...

2. 9 HOldsworth, History of Engllsh Law (1926) 10. See also Annos.. 47 A.L.R. 1288; 97 A.L.R. 411.
~18 ConfIlrt 01


6. Coke on Littleton ISb (as to realty); Blackstone, Commentaries 1, 472 (comparing the corporatlon'lI boldlng to that under a gift for life). See also 2 Kent, Commentaries (1827) 2~u. But see as to modern la'v e. g. Wilson T. Leal'J", 120 N.C. 90, 92, 94, 26 S.E. 630, 631 (1897). ("startling doctrine"). On the origin of the modem business assoc1atlon in general, see Gower, Modern Company Law (2d ed. 1957) 21 ff.; DuBois, The English Business CompaDJ after the Bubble Act, 1;20-1800 (1938).





§ 24



the defunct corporation's shareholders and creditors is a comparatively recent develop. ment, reacting primarily to possible abuse of the voluntary surrender of the charter. But even. in this respect the requirement of legislative approval supplied the necessary protection; and the interests of creditors were held suffiCiently safeguarded by their continuing right to enforce their claims against any property belonging to the corporation, "held in trust for the company, or for the stockholders thereof, at the time of its· dissolution, in any mode permitted by the local laws." 1 Only when the business corporation came to be prevailingly a "creature" of private autonomy, did the need arise for re-examining the legal incidents of its demise. Theory and problem. From the common law analogy between a dissolved corporation and a dead individUal, the Supreme Court has deduced the rule "that, as the death of the natural person abates all pending litigation dissolution of a corporation at ~mmon law, abates all litigation in which the corporation is appearing either as plaintiff or defendant so that if the life of the corporation is to continue even only for litigating purposes. it is necessary that there should be some ~tatutory authority for the prolongation." 8 Such statutes may prolong the corporate !ife either with or without a time limit or until final judgment in proceedings commenced during the- period' fixed by such limitation.s (n the absence of such legislation or after ,~xpiration of a statutory time limit, litiga-.

tion must attempt to reach the corporate assets under the common law. to The persons representing the corporation during such litigation may be a receiver or the directors as trustees of its assets with or without court supervision.l l All these variations in common law and statutory rules have created substantial problems of conflict of laws. Practice. In contrast to its active capacity (§ 12), the passive capacity of a foreign dissolved corporation to be sued 12 usually benefits the interests of domestic plaintiffs. Therefore, although courts are apparently unwilling to draw an e."'Press distinction, the case law in effect, though not in terms, seems to grant the foreign dissolved corporation's standing to be sued more readily than standing to sue. This appears in several ways:
In the first place, the forum may deny the validity of the dissolution. While this will hardly occur as to sister state corporations properly dissolved· under their own law, 13 non-recognition of a foreign government may induce an American court to ignore that government's acts of dissolution, t6. at10. Ree Ruprn note 1. Concerning continued existence lor- rox purposes, see Xeill v. Phinney, 245 F.2d 645 (5th Clr. 105n. II.

least as to such acts prior to recognition. 1fS be held suflicient to revive the "dead" corsecondly, applications of the common law poration.19 Reference to the foreign law rule treating a ~lved corporation as le- will usually be found where that law entails gally dead, unable ·to take any action of any suability,20 particularly in the case of the And kind either as a plaintiff or as a defendant,18 so-called "statutory successor." 21 may usually be explained upon considera- where the- foreign law would make a distions of expediency. Thus it will appear in solved corporation nonsuable, that law may such cases that the plaintiff's interests were be held· not clearly established,:! or the atotherwise safeguarded by a simultaneous tempted dissolution may be held ineffective suit against a liquidator; that a judgment under that law.!3 Or suability· under the against the dissolved corporation would not lex fori may be founded on a procedural be effective; or that a default judgment characterization of the foreign law.:!t In would be unfair under the circumstances of any event, the foreign corporation's domestic assets will remain subject to attachthe case. l1 On the other hand, statutes of many states 19. United States, to Use of Coloninl Brick Corp. v. have expressly subjected foreign dissolved Federal Surety Co., i2 F.~d !161. !l84 (4th Clr.lD.14), cert. den. 294 U.S. ill, 55 ~.Ct. roT (t9:J5). See corporations to suit without regard to the also Clark v. Williard. 292 roS. 112, 119. 54- S.Ct. law of their incorporation,18 and corpora615, 618 (1934): GnrJ:Qc v. Smith·Rowland Co.• liO F.2d 171 (7th Clr. 1048) lbut identical laws). tions doing business in the forum state usually consent to such treatment when being 20. Acton~. WnshinJrton Times Co.• 12 F.Snpp. 251 (D.C.l(d.1035) : Christian v. Texas Gns & Power licensed. The breakdown of the original, alCorp.. 14 F.R.D. ~ 1~.D.Tex.l952): Sinnott v. Han· legedly analytical, rule of ''nonexistence'' in an. 214 N.Y. 454. lOS N.E. R.'iS1I!)151. ~ee also Spiel· berger \'. Textron. Inc•• 172 F.:!II Si; (:!d Clr.1D-19): conflicts cases is moreover shown by the State ex reI. Bond &-GoOdwin I: Tucker \'. Snp. Ct.• fact that a "public policy" of the forum may 169 'Vash. 688. 15 P~d 660 (1932), ntY'd ::!SO U.S.

Ballantine. Corporations (rev. ed. 1046) 730.

12. llarcl1s, ::)l1nblllty of Dissolved CorporationsA l'\tndy In Interstate nnd Fedpral·Stnte Relationships, ;j$ Hnrv.L.Re\·. fiW (104G); Wortley, The

See UnderbUl Y. Hernandez. 168 U.S. 250. 253. 18 S.Ct. 8.1, 84 (18D1): WllIlams v. Bmffy, 00 U.S; 176, 186 (1818); Oetjen v. Central Leather Co.• 246 U.S. 297, 302. 303, 38 S.Ct. 309. 310. 311 (101;): If. SaUmoff &: Co. v. S'ltandard· Oil Co.. 262 Y.Y. 220. 223. 188 Y.E. 619. ra81 (1033): Terrazas v. Holmes, 115 Tex. 32, :?i'5 S. W. 392 (109-5). But cf. Vladlkavknzslcy Ry. Co. v. Yew York Tntst Co.• 263 N.Y. 369. 189 N.E. 456 (1034). See nlso Zwack V. Kraus Bros. .\ Co.. Inc.. 231 F.2d 253, 258-259 (2d Clr. 1956). As to the Suez controversy, see Note, iO Harv.L.Rev. -180,489(1957).

361. 53 S.Ct. 624 (1933). AIQJIIO Fence Co. \". United States. 240 F.2d 179 (alh Clr.l9:li) (federal prosecn-

tion of Texas company under Texas law extending existence to "defend Judicial proceedings"). But see U. S. Truck Co. v. Pennsylvania Surety Corp., 259 ~[lch. 422. 243 N.W. 311 (1932) (full faith and credit); E. RemingtOn I: Sons V. SamoDa Bay Co., 140 Mass. 494, 15 N.E. 202 (1888) .stockholder sued upon judgment ngainst foreign dissolved corporntlon apparently citizl'.Q of the fomm state). See also lleyer v. Indian BtU Farm, :!58 F.2d :!81 (2d Cir. 19C58).
21. See in general Cheatham. The Statutory Succes' sor, the Receiver and the- Executor In Conflict ot Laws. 44 Coi.L.Rev. 549 (1944). For n slgnlftcant parallel in international conflicts law. see National Bank ot Greece and Athen& S. a. v. l(etllss. (l05T) 3 All E.R. 608, where the House of Lords held suable a Greek bank as the debtor bank's "universal successor" under a Greek decree (per Viscount Simonds, at 612). 22. See e. g. United States v. United States Vanadium Corp.. 230 F.2d 646 (lOth Cir.1056), cert.den. 3Gl U.S. 939, i6 S.Ct. 836 (1956).

Dissolution of Foreign Corporations in Prh.'ate International Law, etc., H Dr.Y.B.lncL. 1 (1033); ~nos., 41 a.L.R. 1288: 01 a.L.R. 471.
13. Dissolution by a state other than that of incorporntlon will not be recognized elsewhere. See e. g. Lydia E. Pinkham l(edlclne Co. v. Gove, 21>S lIass. aa. 0 ~.E.2d 5i3' (1031). 14. Petrogradsky lfejdunarodny KOOk Bank v. National City Bank. 2.')3 N.Y. 23•. 110 N.E. 479 (1930). cerro den. :!S2 U.S. 878. at S.Ct. 82 (1930); Fred S. James Co. '~~econd Russian Ins. Co•• 239 N.Y. 248, 146 ~.E. 369 (1025). Ct. Remington V. Samana Bay Co., 140 Mass. 404, a N.E. 292 (1886) (per Holmes, J.) (recognition of dissolution by de facto govem-· ment) ; and in genernl Jennings, ~ote. 26 CallLL. Rev. 117, 127 11'.. 130 fr. (l93n. For n. detailed. analysis of the German practice, partiCUlarly as toEast·German corporations, see Kegel 628ft.

lfmnma v. The Potomac Co., 8 Pet. (33 U.S.) !!SO,
:.!S6 (1834) (per Story, J.).

Oklahoma Xatnrnl Gas Co. v. Oklahoma, 2i3 C.S. :!Si. :!59. ·Ii. S.Ct. 391, 3D2 (102il. But see for earUer protection In' equity e. g. OreenWOOd v. Union l"reigbt R. R., 103 U.S. 13. IS. 19 (ISSl). See nlso Chicago Title & Trust Co. \', Forty.()ne Thirty.Slx Wilcox Bldg. Corporation, 302 U.S. 120, 58 S.Ct. 125 t 1937) (involving right to sue); Anno.. lOS ..\.L.R.

18, See e. g. Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. Forty·One Thlrty·Six Wlleox Bldg. Corp•• ·302 U.S. 120, 125, 58 S.Ct. 125, 121 (1931); Fitts v. National Life Asa'n, 130 Ala. ,41S, 30 So. 374' (l9(1); Great American Insurance Co. v. Farmers Warehouse Co., 91 OkL 118, 217 P; :!OS (1923); Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v. McFarland. 143 Oklo 252, 288 P. 468 (1930). But ct. Stevens, Corporations (2d ed. 1948) 062. See in general lfarcus. Suablllty ot Dfs. solved Corporations, 58 Barv.L.Rev. 675 (1945).

United States to Use of Colonial Brick Corp. v. Federal Surety Co.. 72 F.2d 961 (4th Clr.l9M), cert. den. 294 U.S. 'ill. 00 S.Ot. 501 (1935).


Lattin and Jennings, Cases and llaterials. on Corporations (3d ed. 1050) 1300 n. 1.

18. Williams. v. Paclfle Royalty Co., 241 li'.2d. 672. (10th Clr.l95T); Dr. Hess & Clark. Inc. v. lIetalsalts Corp., 119 F.Supp. 421 (D.C.N.J.l954); Lifo Asa'n ot America v. Fassett, 102 m 31G, 324 (1882). See in general Note. 40 Corn.L.Q. 610, 611 (1955).

23. See e. g. Matson v. Kennecott lIines Co., 101 Wash. l2,.ln P. 1040 (l91S). 24.
See- Peoria Engraving Co. ~. Streator Cold Storage Door Co., 221 Iowa 690, 266 N.W. 548 (1936)







ment.U In order to facil1tate such andotber proceedings, the statute may condition the foreign dissolved corporation's right to surrender its certificate of authority for doing business in the forum state, upon its consent to having process served on the secretary of state in any litigation relating to a cause of action created prior to the surrender.26 Cases prohibiting suit against 1:he foreign dissolved corporation are rare where the forum provides for suability even if the law of incorporation fails to do so. Such cases can often be explained on grounds other than that of the traditional, imperative con·filcts rule referring to the law of incorporation.''; This is also often true as to those rare cases where procedural capacity is denied under the lex fori notwithstanding a domiciliary statute permitting suit.1S In ·view of

1his fact and the many so-called ·"exceptions", it may be justified to reformulate the alleged rule. Foreign corporations will always be held suable if the law of incorporation so provides. Even if it does not, suit will be -permitted if the forum statute to this effect is either expressly made applicable to foreign corporations or if such a corporation bas consented to such application; or if the foreign non-suability rule is held inapplicable

for other reasons. Since service of process remains subject to general jurisdictional standards of fain;tess (§ 33), there is no reason why the capacity rule, which has long beenappUed in fact, should not be expressly

held subject to waiver; 31 and decisions enforcement against joint 'propof judgments obtained after service up. ~n fewer than all associates,3! may point in -the same direction. 33 Statutes 34 ha.ve made . ~ch inroads in the actual effect of the rule 1bat the time may not be distant when it will have to be abandoned as obsolete, not .only where statutes expressly so provide but .a1s0 where this result may be aITived at by lnference, ·at least as to some types of asso. cations. The Supreme Court, in what is 1lt least a dictum in a leading case,~ seems to support this view. Two types of these -statutes deserve special mention.
-al. See e. It. At~x Mf,::_ Co. T. "Llord's of London," 189 F.Supp. 314. 31S) (W.D.Ark.1955); Tonge T. Item Publlsbln~ Co., 244 Pn. 4];. 91 A. 220 n014); Sturges, supro § 12 note 32, ot 889.
32. See e. It. DwlJUrln,: T. Parkwar Bus Co.. 280 N.C. 234. 52 S.E.2d 892 (l949r: Walsh T. Kirhr. 228 Pa. 194, 1i A. 452 (1910): Pyzdrowskl T. TarkOWSki. 187 Pa.Super. ns, S A.2d 458 (1039).


Common law. Judicial and legislative inclination to concede greater procedural ca.25. See e. It. Clinton T. Coppedge, 2 F.SuPJI.93a pacity to defendants than to plaintiffs bas (Okl.l933) (dictum). But see FlU,: T. Nationnl Life Ass'n, 180 Ala. 413. 30 So. 8;4 (1901). Concernlng been shown in several instances (§ § 13, 23). A similar preference has been observed in Internationnl cases, S('C Kl'gel 028fl'. 26. Sec Antonann T. Ore Stenmsbip Corp.. 144 F. both the domestic and confiicts treatment of Supp. 480, 401 (S.D.N.Y.19:iG\ ". • the em· non-incorporated associations.19 Owing to phasis if; not upon the technical situ!; of the cause of action "je\\"ed froUl the conflicts of laws stand- a persistent dogma (§ 12), it must still be ))Oint. Rather, tile qnef;t\on if; whether or not the said to be the common law rule that a suit action relatef; to nctl\"itle,: conclnrteo hr the COTJ)oration in the state while dOing business In the against a partnership in the firm name is a state." See also Robert lIitchell Furniture Co. T. suit "against an entity which is legally nonSelden Breck Const. Co.. :mi U.S. 2]3. 42 S.Ct. 84 existent; and the proceeding [is] void ab (1921), construinl; a similar Ohio Statute. 27. See e. g. Marlon Phosphate Co. T. Perry, 74 F. initio." 30 But even this common law rule 425 (5th Cir.lS9G.I. The court, limiting itself to a has lost its jurisdictional standing where it
construction of the forum statute as not affecting forelgu corporations, stresses the fact that plaintiff mar find relief in equity. See also Fitts T. Nat'l Life Ass'n, 130 Ala. 413, 80 So. 8;4 (1901). United States T. Line llaterial Co., 202 F.2d 929 (6th Clr.1953); Comment, 21 U.Cbi.L.Re\". 480 (1954) ; Anno., 40 A.L.B.2d 1396 n955). But see also United States T. P. F. Colller & Son Corp., 20S F.2d 936 (7th Oir.1953); Alamo Fence Co. T. United States, 240 F.2d 179 (5th Cir.1057).


As to busines~ trusts, see Anllo., lGG A.L.n .. 22, 221; infra § 150 note 2.

Statutes. Joint Debtor Acts, ·ever. since 1788,36 have enabled plaintiffs to enforce judgments againSt joint debtors recovered upon service on one or some of them. . This effect upon nonresident defendants not properly served with process (§ 27) may be justified on a theory of agency.37 Such statutes mayor may not recognize the association as a legal entity. as And this effect mayor may not be limited to partnerships.3D ·This .much seems certain, these statutes have detracted substantially from the impact of the dogma of nonentity upon procedural .capacity. The wholesale abandonment ·of this dogma with regard to passive procedural capacity is expressed in the frequent tlcom.mon. Mme'J statutes which permit the plaintiff to sue unincorporated associations under their firm name. After service has been had on one or two of the associates, any judgment so recovered will "bind the joint property of all the associates and the individual property of J1i!ose] served with process. . "40
Conflict of laws. Here as .in the law of corporations, the test of passive procedural capacity has primarily developed as one of "presence" in the forum. But here as there,
36. N.Y.Laws ]788. c. 40, § 23. The constitutionality

'84. See e. It. Lewl~ Mfg. Co. T. Sl1perlor Court. 140
CalApp.2d 245. 2f);j P.2c1 145 (1950) (Cnl.Corp.Cocle 1157(0), Doted in 45 Callt.Lolle'-. 93 (]95i): Young. blood v. Brl~ht. 243 N.C. 590, 01 S.E.2d 500 (195(;) (N.C.G.S. § 1-9j(G),-sce also Session Laws of lOw, e. 545).

55. United lline Workers of America T. Coronndo Coal Co., 200 U.S. 3+.1, 391, 42 S.Ct. 5iO. 5;0 (1022).
See to this eJrect Dodd, supra § 12 note 32, at 1001 ft.; Comment, Unions as Juridical Persons, 66 Yale L.J. 712. 73; (195;). See alRo Itoberts, Labor Un-

28. See Peorin EDgraving Co. T. Streator Cold Stor· age Door Co., 221 Iowa 690, 266 N.W. 548 (1986). Ct. 2 Beale, Conflict of Laws (1935) 744. AppUcation of the lex fori to foreign corporations is constitutional. lIcGoon T. Scales, 9 Wall. (76 U.S.) 2S (1870) ; Gulledge Bros. Lumber Co. T. Wenatchee Land Co., 115 MinD. 491, 132 N.W. 992 (l9ll) (dictum). But cf. Perry T. Western Motor Car Co., 279 Dl.App. 19:; (1935). In Arbitration between llepubllque Francalse and CelJosUk Mfg. Co., 809 N.Y. 269. 128 N.E.2d 750 (1955), involTlog an allen plaint11l', a dlssolTed nUncis corporation was denied staDdlng to be sued. DRt.Withstandlng possible com· pllance with the Illlnois extension statute. Cf. dissent, Id. at 280, 757. Criminal prosecution may have to be distinguished from elvll litigation. See

29. Crane, Law of Partnership (2d eel. 1952) 805.
See Infra I 149. So. Lewis v. West Side Trust &: Savings Bank, 877 m. 384, 86 N.E.2d G78 n941). Sec also Spence T. The Woodman 00., 213 Ga. G78, 100 S.E.2d 485 (1957) ; west Virglnla Secondal'1 School Activities Com'n T. Wagner, 148 "W.Va. 508, 102 S.E.2d 901 (1958); Elizabeth Bospltal, Inc., T. Richardson, 16T F.Supp. 155, 160 (W.D.Ark.1958), aff'd on other ground 269 F.2d 167 (8th Clr. 1959), cert. den. 861 U.S. 884. 80 S.Ct. IG5 (1959). "

ions, Corporntlont:-The Coronado Case, I) Ill.L.Q. 200 (1923); Magill and Ma,::llJ, The Suability of La· bor Umons, 1 N.C.L.ReT. 81, 86 (1922); Forkoscb, The Legal StatuI:: and SuablUrr of Labor Unions. 28 Temp.L.Q. 1 (19M); Sykes, The Legal Status of Trade Unions, 2 Sydney L.ReT. 271 (1957). But cr. Learned Hand, J., in Ex parte Edelstein, 30 F.2d 636, 638 (2d Cir.l929); Sturges, supra § 12 note 32, at 398. See also Moran T. International Alliance, etc., 139 N.J.Cb. 561, 52 A.2d 531 (194;); Spica T. International Ladies Garment Workers' Union, SSS Pa. 382, 130 A.2d 468 (1957) Oabor unions); Anno., 149 A.L.n. GOB; and for the law prevailing in the Commonwealth, Campbell, Legnl Personality, Trade Umons, and Damages for Unlawful Expulsion, 3 U.West.Austr.Ann.LReT. 893 (1956); Sherbaniuk, Actions br and altainst Trade Unions in Contract and Tort, 12 U.Tor.L.J. 151 (1958). See also Pav. lovscak T. Lewis, 2j4 F.2d G23 (3d Cir. 1960), cert. den. 802 U.S. 990, 80 S.Ot. 1078 (1960).

of such stntuteN wns upheld in SUlUt \". TborntoJl, 132 U.S. 024, 10 S.Ct. 163 (18R91. Sec also Western lint. Fire Ins. Co. \". Lamson Uros. & Co" 42 F.Supp. l00i (S.D.Iowa 1941): EsteTe Bros. & Co. T. Harrell, 2;2 F.2d 882 (5th Cir.l0:!1); and in general MOl:ruder and FostCl', supra § 12 not~ 3~, at SOO: Kaplan, Suits 8Jlninst Unincorporatccl ASAAcintiollf; under the Federal Rules of OlvU IJrocedure, 53 Mich.LBeT. 94t; (1055).
37. Davidson T. Henry L Doherty & Co., 214 Iowa 739,241 N.W. 700 (1932). 38. Beaton v. Scbae1l'er, 34 Okl. 631, 126 P. 70-; (1912); Hassen T. Rogers, 123 Okl. 205, 253 P. 72 (1926) ; Magruder and Foster, supra § 12 note 32. at 804. The majority Tiew seems to favor non-eDtlty. Crane, op. elt. supra note 29. at 32L

39. Orane, op. elt. supra note 29, at 822. See Freeman T. Smlth, 88 N.W.2d 834 (N.D.1957).

40. CaI.Code CiT.Proc. § SSS.


See In general Hold. OCItel, Jurisdiction over Partnerships, Nonpartner. sblp Associations, and Joint Debtors, 11 Iowa L. Ile\". 193, 198 (1926); Note, 19 U.Plttsb.L.Rev. 132 (1957).




functional parallelism of this development with that concerning the capacity of individuals suggests common treatment under the heading of proper service (§ 33). Since the formation of partnerships and other unincorporated associations is, in contrast to that of corporations, subject to widely varying substantive rules, additional choice of law problems are presented as to such associations. These problems, being closely connected with the issue of individual and collective liability,u will be treated in the Second Part.

Ch.l " on the other hand, has been held applicable where it favored suability..... or was held to do so by virtue of a presumption of identity with the law of the forum. 4ll Federal law will apply in the application of certain federal statutes.46


§ 25




Second Sub-Chapter

: (Local) Jurisdiction and Proper Process: "Does the Court Have Jurisdiction?"

In many respects the confiicts law of the procedural capacity of partnerships and other unincorporated associations will be found similar to that of dissolved corporations.4J In both situations we are deallng with associations whose legal personality differs from law to law and question to question; and as 44. Edgewortb v. WOOd, ~ ~.J.L ~63. 33 A. 040(1806). to both, we can observe the courts' inclination, in selecting the applicable law, to favor 45. _Ruth Y. Lowrey & Upton, 10 Neb. 260, 4 ~. W. DI I (1880). See IlI!$O inrm § 140 note 11. the suability, though not the standing to sue, of the foreign "creature." This apparent 46. See Association or Westingbouse Salnried Em. ployees \". Westinghouse 1~lectrlc Corp., 348 U.S. tendency, rather than a general procedural ~31, 452. i5 S.Ot. 4SS. 496 (1055) (Lnbor lIanagement characterizatio~ may explain those few RelatloDS Act). holdings in which the courts held foreign ct. lIybalyk \". Lewis, 3118 Pn. 395, 158 A.2d 305 (1060), partnerships suable -under the lex fori notcert. den. 362 U.S. !lSD, 80 S.Ot. 1018 (1000) (trust fund created nnder Act "simllnr to foreign corporawithstanding a contrary rule prevailing in tion" under Pennsyl\'Min law). the state of organization. 43 The latter law,
41. See- in general, Anno.• 2D A.LR.2d 2D5; and as to limited partnersblps, Note. 44 Hnrv.L.Rev. 615

Difficult problems may arise in this respect as to foreign judgments recovered against the Partnership under a "common name statute" (supra) , sought to be enforced against individual partners not served in the judgment state. Such recognition has been held to be required by full faith and credit at least as against partnership prop. erty.·1'7 This result could not have been reached had the procedural capacity been treated as "jurisdictional." 48


§ 25. This sul>chapter \vill explore further the conditions upon which an American court, in the light of its common law and statutes, as limited by the United States Constitution, may, will, or must adjudicate a civil case. Discussion of this law of HIo· cal" jurisdiction will precede that of Hin_ terstate" and Hinternational" jurisdiction dealing with the recognition of foreign judgments (§§ 45-ff.).1

er a court may take the case, 1. e., whether
it "has" jurisdiction, concerns the rules de-

The analysis of local jurisdiction involves several lines of in9uirr. The inquiry whethI. This tenninololtV Is borrowed rrom T.oren7.en. Cns-

termining whether capable· parties ( § § 1224) were properly notified of the action and given adequate opportunity to defend (§ § 25-33). The inquiry whether a court will take the case, i. e., whether it chooses to "e.~ercise" the jurisdiction ~ it admittedly "has," involves two further questions: first, whether the court should or at least may decline adjudication (§ § 34-38); and secondly whether it must do so owing to a rule of common law (§ 39), constitutional compulsion U § 4Of.), or contractual agreement (§ §

47. Cf. East Denver lIun. Dls~ v. Doherty, 2D3 F. 804 (S.D~'l.Y.1D23). _


42. But see e. g. American Cas. Co. v. Kincade. 210 1tl88. 003, 60 So.2d 820 (1054), discussing the question In terms of jurisdiction over individuals. 43. Snunders v. Adnms Exp. Co.. 11 N.J.L. 270, 57 A. 800 (1004) [distinguishing Edgeworth v. WOOd, infra note 44); Lehman v. Napier, 101 F.Supp. 313 (D.O.Iowa 1051); Western llut. Fire Ins. Co. v. LlUDSOn Bros. & Co., .42 F.Supp. lOOT (D.O.lowa

48. As it was apparently in D'Al'CY' v. Ketcbum. U How. 16:1 (1850). The continued nuthority of that cllse in tbis respect has heen doubted In the light ot Henry L. Doherty & Co. ,'. Goodman, 2D4 U.S. 623, 55 S.Ot. 553 (1035). nphohUng a judgment. against a nonresident trader after service on his nonresident agent. Crane, Law of Partnership (2d ed. 1(52) 328. See also Stoner v. Higginson, 316 Pa. 481 17S A. 527 (1934) (nonresident partnership, servi~ on local agent); Operative Plasterers' and Cement Finishers' International Ass'n v. Case, D3 F.2d 56 (D.O.Olr.l037).

es nnd llateria1s on tbe ConDlct of I.am; (lith edt 42-44). 1001) ]5. Nussbaum 241 wonld prefer "rllreet" nnd "Indirect" jorisdlction, In aceonlnnce with Bartln, The term "jurisdiction" has, however, alPrincipes de droit international prlve (tD30) § 127. so been used in several other meanings not See nlso Pennoyer v. Nelf, 05 U.~. 114. i2!! (1818). While continental terminology JreneraUy dlstin.:oilfh- relevant for this discussion. Thus, it has es clearly between Intnlstate competency and state . been used to refer to certain relations bejurisdiction, it equally lncks different terms for the foreign conn's "International" nnd the forum's "lo- tween federal' and state courts which are cal" Jurisdl('tiOD. But most continental laws fore- commonly treated in texts on "federal justnll confusion by proViding expre!JSly- that the intemntlonal jurlsdlctlou of the foreign court Is to be determined under the IIl\v of the fonlm (I 5ll). cr. 2. The Restntement nses the term "exerci..~e" with. ~rman Code El1v.Proc. § 328m(I); Austrinn Code reference to constitutionally permIssible jurisdicof Execution § 80(1); ItaUnn Code Olv.Proc. Art. tion not accepted by the state, Ilnd thus distinguishi91(1): nnd the French judicial rule In O.Oass.Dec. es "jurisdlction of the court" (under state Illw) from 4, 2i, 1810, Slrey 1811, I, 01; Perroud,;; Rep.Dr. "jurisdiction of the state" (nnder the CODStltutlon). Int. 374 fl. (1029). In general see Rlezler 532 If. On See GoOdrich 222. and ct. Id. nt 103, 225. For anthe distinction between German "Gerichtsbarkelt" other usage of the same terms see Rest., Judgments (1942) § 4, comment b. See also ('. g. the nnd "Zustilndlgkelt" and tbe Fl'ench distinction tJe. tween "competence geuerale (ou Internatlonale)" dichotomy of '~tentlal" and "actual" jurisdiction In ~ote, 40 Onllf.L.Rev. 100 (1052). Tbe definition and :he "competence speciale", see Rlezler 191 fl. with c.~mprebenslve bibliography; Ollvl, Note sui of jnrJsdlctlon in Rest. 1 42 as "tbe power of n sUlte to create interests which under tbe principles Concetto dl GlurtsdlZione, 8 Jus 42 (1001) ;. nod parof the common Inw will be recognized as valid in tiCUlarly Nussbaum. Jurisdiction· nod Foreign Judgother stntes," is unsntlsfactory, because it assumes· ments, -n. Ool.L.Rev. 221 (1941); Fraglstns. Ln non-existent uniform common lnw prInCiples of competence interDationale nux conferences de In recognition, nnd wouid apply tbese- principles even Hnye de- DIP- (1957); ld., Probl~mes resultant du as to civil Inw countries. See also Rest. § 45. conftlt de ~les sur la competence judlclare inte~ Rest. § 43 concerning the "Exercise of Power bynntlonale (1957); Falk, International Jurisdiction:. States of (the) United States without Jurisdiction" Horizontal and Vertical Conceptions of Legal Order.. Is circUlar. See Cook 81 fl. 32. Temple L.Q. 295 (1959); infra note 17; I 51.






rlsdiction"; S or to designate the authority ("competency") 4 conferred upon courts by their own law over certain "subject matter", which will be considered here only to distinguish this authority from conflicts "jurisdiction"; or even to explain certain decisions on the merits,5 a usage unhappily promoted by the theory of "legislative jurisdiction" (§ 4). Our discussion of local jurisdiction excludes these problems. But it must reach beyond those questions concerning judicial authority which are usually said. to be "jurisdictional" because they concern elements of that authority whose absence is incurable. Limitations of the discussion to these elements is not feasible since the lines are badly blurred G· The broad scope of so diffuse a subject does not permit perfect classification. While consistent analysis would no doubt be highly desirable, it would necessitate much new nomenclature, and has had to be sacrificed, therefore, to the exigencies pf practical use. Thus, although problems of jurisdiction over corporations (§ 33) are largely concerned with the corporation's procedural capacity (§ 24) rather than with requirements of process, traditional juxtaposition of these problems with those of jurisdiction over individuals U§ 27 fl.) (which is a matter primarily of process requirements) has been maintained Moreover, the doctrine of forum non conveniens [will the court take the case? ( §§ 34 ff.)] is dealt with separately from the basis of jurisdiction, although both doctrines seem about to coalesce in a new-and old3. See Bart and Wech,;ler, The Federal Courts and the Federal System (1953). 4. See in !renernl Blume and Joiner, Jurisdiction and Judgments (10~). 5. Cf. Nussbaum 10, 70, 98. Buszko\\'skl T. Buszkowski, 851 l\llclL 210, 88 N.W.2d 410 (1958) even speaks of a "JurIsdiction to make an error." 6. Even "Jurisdlctlonnl" llaws are rendered curable by court rules limiting relief to a "reasonable time" after the judgment. See e. g. Garza \". Paone, 44 N.J.Super. OOi, 131 A.2d 32 (looi). See also Comment. 44 Va.L.Re\". 654 (1958); supra II 15 note 28. 10 note 28. 24 note 31; and infra notes 12, 15.

American rule governing the interstate venue 'of the "forum conveniens." ': Frequent crossreferences will have to .suffice to re-establish the logical inter-relation. But, while perfect classification cannot be achieved, further clarification may be attempted by the following analysis of the terminology used and the general theory underlying it.





The question which court, if any, "has" (local) jurisdiction is ambiguous: it may refer to the court's jurisdiction proper (over parties or things) or a so-called jurisdiction over the subject matter. This second phrase, too, is ambiguous: it may designate a type of case over which the state has "given to the court the power to entertain the action'',8 and may in this sense be used "more or less interchangeably" II with the term "compe7. Note JudJre Learned Band's besitation In stating that ·'It may BtUl be tl'ue that In theory the Issue as to jurIsdiction is dIfferent trom that af: to forum non coD\'eniens . • ." LatImer ,'. SfA Industrlaf: Ueuntdas F. Matarazzo. 1iG F.2d 184 (2d Cir. ]949), cert. den. 338 U.S. 80i, 70 S.Ct. 141 (1949) (cmphnslf: added), St>e nlso Jo'rench T. Gibbs Corp., 189 F.2d 78i (2d Cir. 10a1); United States T. Watchmakers of SwItzerland lnr. Co., 134 F.Supp. 110 (S.D.N.Y.l900); Kenny T. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 132 F.Supp. 83S (S.D.CaUfma). Although these cases relate to corporations, increasIng assimilation of the jurIsdiction o\"er corporations and individuals under n "fairness" test (I 3:J) would gi\"e more general significance to this trentl. But see McClendon T. The Curtis Bay Towing Co., 130 F.Supp. 400 (S.D. N."r.1055), limiting this approach to cases subject to transfer under Section 1404(a) of the Judiclal Code. For a fuller exploration of this development see Ehrenzweig. The Transient Rule of Persona) Jurisdiction: The "Power" Myth and Forum Con· "enlens, 0:; Yale L.J. 28fI (1950). For simllar results within a similar constitutional framework, see Cowen, The Conflict of Laws: The Experience of tbe Australian Federadon, 0 Vand.L.Re\". 038. GOO (1953). See infra note 49 i § 33 note 62; • 35 at note 7. .~ 8. Rest., Judgments (1942) § i, comment a. 9. Field and Kaplan, Materials for a Basic Course In CivU Procedure (19:53) i37.

'!f;ency"; -or it may denote the fact that .the .a-es supporting an in rem ora quasi in rem . •ction (§§ 26,29) has been properly brought -before the court. Being ambiguous, the .phrase "jurisdiction over the subject matter" !Should probably be limited to this second use, 'Which would leave the description of the court's authority over certain causes of ac·"tion ·to the new term "competency." But though this term has been used in the Restatement,10 it has found little favor with .American courts. U It is belieVed, justly so. Competency has been borrowed from the fundamentally different system of the civil law in which jurisdictional defects are procedural and thus usually curable. I! The

borrowing of a foreign termlnology to· designate a di1ferent institution can only in~ase the confusion now prevailing in international conflicts cases. Only a reversaJ of what will be shown to be a partly accidental development of the American ·law of per· sonal jurisdiction 13 could remove the now existing cleavage.
Austrian "JurJsdlktlonsnoi-m" • 99; Danish Lov om Rettenspleje § 248; Norwegian Lo\" om retters· gangmoaten for tvistemaal • ·82; Swedish Rltte· gangs balk ]948, ch. 10, § ]: 1 Ekel6f, Kompendlum over ClvUprocessen 129 (1948). For an bistorical analysis see 1 Neumeyer. Die gemelnrechtllcbe Ent· wlcklung des Internationalen PrIvat-und Strafrecl1ts (1910) 42. For Professor Beale's interpretadons of the clt'lUan concept. see Beale. The Jurisdiction of Courtf: over Foreigners, 26 BR1'T.L.Be\". 193, ]00. 283 (1913). But cr. Westlake. Private International La\\" (1858) 90 fl'. i Micbaell, Internatlonales Prlvat· recht (1947) 300 (Swedish Law); Pillet. Jurisdic· tlon In Actions het\vccn Jo'oreIJrners. 18 Ban'.L.Re,'. 325, 33G (1905); Francescakis. Com~tence 6rrange.... et jugement ~trnnger, 42 lle\'.Cr.Dr.lnt.Pr. ] (1953, (France) ; and the excellent article by Boss. The Shlftlng BaSis of JurisdIction, 17 Mlnn.L.ReT. 146 (1933). For an example of current misconceptionF of continental doctrine, see Bol\"ln T. Talcott, 102 F. Supp. 070 (N.D.Ohio 1951). amI for a similar mlsun· derstanding of American concepts on tlle Continent. see c. J:. Verplaetsc, Derecho llllernncional Prh'ado (1004) 680. Cf. Kaplan .. VOll Mehrcn and Schaefer. Phases of German Civil Procedure. 71· Han.L.IteT. llD:i. 1204 OOOS); castel. JuriRdlction and Money JUlllmlcntl' Remlered Abroad: Anglo-American and Frellt'h l'rnctl('(' Compared, 4 l\lcGi11 L.Re,·. ]5:.! L.Re,·. 15:! (10.')8): De Vrlef: and Liiwenteld, Ju· ri!«lictlOIl in l'en;onnl Actions, A Comparison of Ch'U Law Ylews. 44 Iowa L.Re,'. 300 (10ti9) : Comment, i3 Har'·.L.ReY. 900. A13-U15 (19GO). For a brief Rcrount of tile dlfferencef: existing' amon~ ch·n )n", R~'Rtems, see Yiannopou)os. Book Re\"iew. 21 J... 'l.L.Re\'. !jl!), 525-527 (1961). 1 have never 8UI[gestM that. "we tum for Jroidance to th~ ciTll lnw nnd adopt the concept of competp.ncy." Cleary, Th~ J.emrth of the Long Ann, {) J.JJllh.L. 2fJ:t 296 (l9fIOI. Cf. Ehrenzweig in Reply. fl J.l'llb.L. 3:!.<;. 334-3.1fi (1000), Ree also EhrenZ\Vel~. Vart. 4 dcl cod. proc. ch·. itallano e Ie norm~ americonr sulla ··glurl!l. dizlone personate", 16 Rl\".Dir.Proc. 3 (1961); Smlt, The Tenns Jurisdiction and Competence in Comparati\'e Law, 10 Am.J .Comp.L. 164 (1961).
13. Wbat today Is called the law of "jUrisdiction" bas been a part of the conlllcts law of the United

.I..eourt, apparently in' Pennsrlvania.Restatement of Except perhaps whose supreme the

Rest., JudlUDentf: (1942) § 7: Best.Second, Tent. Draft No.4 (19Ui) § 74. comment g: Nupbaum. Jurisdiction and Forell:n Judgments, 41 CoI.L.Re\". 221 (194]) prefers "competenee.·'

Judgments (supra note 10), uses the term as a .synonym for jurisdiction over the subject motter. Strank T. Mercy HDspital. 376 Pa. 30J, 300, ]02 .A.2d 170, 172 (1954). 12. The civil la,,' eflllivalent of jurisdiction over the defendant pre-exislN the brinJrinJ[ o( the suit (infra note 48), and if: primnrll,. haRe<l upon th(' defend. ant's "forum Jrenerale" at bls domicile. whUe special fora are usually provided at the loci contmctus. solUtionis, delicti or situs. In contrast to the stateWide general juriR(lictlon of typical common low countries, a ciTll ~aw ~tate Is divided Into numerous judicial districts. with special le~lRlath'e aMIj:tJlments. While the existence or lack of thlR ch'U law competency in an,. court of the state call hr. said to affect the jurisdiction of tlle state itself (supra note 2). defects In this competenC'y. In contrast to defects In common law juri,;dictlon [see e. g. Sunderland. The Problem of Jl1ri~lctlon, 4 Tex.L.ReT. 420, 444 (1020)), can be cured b,. failure to attack. The common law concept closest to this clvlllan concept of competency is that of \,enue determining the place of trial. But the civIl law con. cept of competency if: not comparable to common law jurisdiction over the parties, which depends de· cisively upon proper service and notice (ft 25 fr.). On the bybrld law of LouiSiana. see Bawes. The Law Relating to the Subject of Jurisdiction of Courts (1886) 23. For Scotland see e. g. North T. Stewart, 17 R. (BL.) 60 (1890). See in general NUSSbaum § 20; Delaume, Jurisdicdon of Courts and International Loans, 0 Am.J.Comp.L. 189 f. (1957). Concerning the property forum. in pardcu. ~ see Millar, Jurisdiction over Absent Defendants: U O Chapters in American Civil Procedure, 14 La. e\". 32I (1954) i German Code Civ.Pr. I 23 i




States ~nly for a little more than a century. Liver. more's DIssertations (1818) hardly mentioned jnrit', dictional problems; and Story, though offering a brief discussion in bis 14th chapter, follows the continental conception of conllict of laws as one of ('hoiCf> of law. Af: late At:: ]001, )flnor mentionFl jurisdiction oo1y Incidentally when dealing wltll th~ dltJ'erence between in personam and in rem actions



Ch. 1

§ 25



At least one court has found it expedient to add to the concepts of jurisdiction over the person (or thing) and jurisdiction over the subject matter, the concept of a "jurisdic· tion of the particular case," apparently in order to designate such jurisdictional requu-e. ments as can be waived by failure of timely objection. tt Since this waivability has come to invade all other types of jurisdiction, t5 the new terminology hardly contributes to the clarification of this difficult topic. IS b. THE" JURISDICTION

jurisdictional treaty provisions may require· interpretation under general conflicts principles. Thus the prOvision of the treaty with Switzerland, which reserves decision in sue.. cession cases to "the country in which the property is situated," 18 requires interpreta. tion as to the situs of the property involved.D'
recht im IPH. 20 Rabels Z. 1 (1955); 110relll.Dlritto Processuale Civile Internazionale (105-l): Pernssl, Yorme Convenzionalt sullo. Competencla Guirisdlctlonale e ~onne Interne sullo. Competencia Internnzlonnle. :n Ann.Dlr.Comp. 1 (1946): Pnlrensterh~r. Gerlcht.<lhnrkelt und IlltC!rnntionnle ZustiindIJ:kelt nls Helhl>riindlge Proz~s\'OmU!~setzungen. 11 Uabel's Z. :1.17' 119:m: GohhK'hmidt•.TurlsdICCIc;n Internac· lonal. li Rev.E.c;p.Der.lnt. 163 (1052); Neuner, Internatlonnle Znstiindhrkeit (1!l'12): Krnllk. Die Internatlonale ZUHtilndhtkeit. i~ Z.f. ZlvllpM7.ess 2-18 (1llH1): f.nndo. ~knDllin~\\'i~ke OJ: fremmede dnmsroles etc. U9;j,f) (Emrlh;h l'lIlumo.ry): ROlmoni. Rccenta sen1eDI:e.-. itallane in tpmn ell 'Ilrltto internaZlb.nti1lH~j:,Xi:satlnle•. 13 Dir.lnt. 1M (101"19). See Illso aGe ti!Dwtel... T~ American literature is sennty. C~nmitinJ: "Domestic Jurisdiction." 10 ~(!P3i}j ~tt1yt. General Principles of r?'!Se~- hy l ..ternlltlonnl Tribunals to Disp~",*mul~ nnd Exercise of State .TnrisdlctI~~~ .. 2i.:.J;..IIy(\p.~ lnt~rnntlonal J.IlW Chiefly as ~~nd' AppUed ... by 51le United States (2d "'$i'M, tZlt£:i8()J;; .: . ~~o~.o~U.S. jurisdlctlou [Story,l.. ilt'.
TbC~ ?-

And the jurisdictional provisions of the WarsaW Convention ask for the ascertainment of the air carrier's;domicile or prinCipal place of businesS.!O With regard to civil process and taxation, the unlimited competency of American courts as to American citizens abroad has been clearly established.U And as of late, "jurisdiction" abroad has been consistently asserted with regard to American antitrust Iaws,H
20. 40 Stnt. :tOOO (102fll Art.:28. SlPe Tn re Waldrep's Estate. 4f) \Vnsh.2cl ill. 306 P.:!'l 213 (1051) (place of destinution). For foreiJ:n ellulmlents see e. g. Zurleh. App.Ct. Jan. 15, 1008. 7' Z. CUr Laftrecht
426 (1958).

security regulations 23 and trademarks. U But in these and other cases, the courts "are concerned only with whether Congress chose to attach liability to the conduct outside the United States of persons not in allegiance to it. That being so, the only question open is whether Congress intended to impose the liability, and whether our own Constitution permitted it to do so. tt 25 Similarly, notwithstanding possible hard· ship threatened from the concurrent inter.. ference of several governments, there can be no doubt that the United States, subject to the competency assumed by Congress and subject to limitations imposed by interna.. tional law, "has" jurisdiction to seize any

What is generally referred to as the "juris· diction" of the United States over foreign transactions does not, as a rule, properly form part of a discussion of conflict of laws. It raises questions either of domestic constitu· tiona! law, insofar as it is determined· by rules of statutory "competency", or of public international law, insofar as it relates to lim· itations imposed by treaty or customP But
But see Rorer. Americau Inter-State For a detailed historical analysis. ~ EhrenzwelJ:, The Transient Rule of Personal Jurisdiction; Tile "Power' llyth nnd Forum Conveniens,. 65 Yale L.J. 289 (1956). For further study !fee Prnger nnd Price, A Bibliography on the History of the Courts of the Thlr· teen Original States, llo.lne, Ohio and Vermont, 1 Am.J.Leg.Bist. 336 (1951). (at 184 tr.).
Law (1879).


.lla.~ng ~view of the "extraterritorial" ai&8lClfiJe"0f5ar1sdtctlon to protect the security, intaiiiRj!iii9'iiifepP.Ddeoce ot the state, and' concerning ncts ·paitfy-eommltted nt home. Garcla-~Iora, CrimInal Jurisdiction etc., 10 U.Plttsb.L.Rev. 567 (1058): Note, 45 Co.llf.L.Rev. 109 (1957). See nlso People· v. Burt, 4ii CaL2d 311, 288 P.2d 503 (1055), per Traynor; J.


(22 U.s.) 362, 310 (1824)]

21. Blnekmer \". United States. ~ U.H. 421.;)2 S.Ct. 19 (1932) (:O;lIhpoena): Cook v. Tnit. :!r.:; U.S. 47. 44 S.Ct. 444 (1!l'.!." fincome taxation): Gtlln~" \'. :O;tnte, 40 Wash.2d liii. :Hti P.:!f1 43:1 09;12) (~tnte inherltIlDce tu); Goouri('il 100. 105: Uel4t. § SO. ~ also Sklrlotes v. Floridll. :U:l U.S. lID. til ~.Ct. 024 (1041): Coumas \". Snp. Ct.. 31 Cnl.!!d R82. 192 P 2f1 +Ill (1948): United States v. Stabler. 169 F.2d 995 (3d Clr.1048): People v. Rnrt, -15 Cnl.2d 311. :?S8 P.2d 503 (1!l5.~l: BIshop. International Law (1053) 34; Jessup. Transnntional Law (1!Y'.J8) :IS: ,\merlcnn Lnw Institute. "1\ Uestatement". Forel ... Relntlolllf -n Lnw. Tent. Drnft ~o. 1 (l!)-;)j) iff. The aew confilets Restatement prefers "jurisdictional" language necessarily based on supernational law. Rest. second, Tent. Draft No. ~ (1957) f SO. Supra It 3. 4.
22. Haight. Antltrust Laws nnd the Territorial Princlple,l1 Vnnd.L.Rev. 21 (195i). HalKht, Intematlon-

See Xote. G6 llan'.L.Rev. 1081 (10-:;'1) (Canada).

24. See Ramirez & (o~ernllcl Chili Co. v. I..as Pnlmns Food Co.. 146 F.SllPP. :;901 1~.D.('nl.1!laR). ntr'd ~45 F.:!d 87'4 (Oth Clr. 195T). cert. den. :100. U.S. 921, i8 ~.Ct. :lM (1058) (llexicot. ~ee J:enemlly Trautman,

The Role flf Ci)nfllcts ThinkinJ: in Deftning the Inre-mationnl Rench or Amerlcnn Regulatory f~glsla­ don. 2!! Ohio St.L.J. 586 (1OU1).

14. State v. Reeves. 234 Ind. 225, 125 ~.E.2d 7D4 (1955): State v. Knowles, 236 Inel 511, 141 N.E.2d 8M (1051). Earlier cases used the new term for the purpose of delimiting exclusive from concurrent jurisdiction. State. v. Circuit Court, 221 Ind. 212, M N.E.2d 585 (1049): State v. Laporte Circuit Court. 209 Ind. 682,. 200 N.E. 614 (1036). 15. See supra note 6.· 18. Jurisdiction "over a particular question or controversy" is distinguished trom "jurisdiction over the particular action," In Los Angeles G. & E. Corp. v. Superior Court. 53 Cal.App. i01, 7'06, 200 P. 811

IS. 11 Stat. 581, Art. VI, U.S. Treaty Ser.No. ass (1850). See I11so the older treaties with Prussia (1828) Art. XIV; Austria (1820) Art. IV: Wilrttemberg (ISH) Art. V: Haltl (1864) Art. IX, none of which are in elfect today. lIodern treaties omit such provisions. 19. Dilferences In the characterization may cause dltflcultles, as with regard to land converted Into money. The Inconsistent reasoning In In re Schneider's Estate. 00 N.Y.S.2d 552 (Surr.1950), atrd Olr reargument. 100 N.Y.S.2d 311 (Surr.1930), characteriZIng the question nt one point (though not throngbout) as one Involving realty tor choice of law pu~ poses. ~~Ue treating it as one involving personalty for jurlsillctlonal purposes, could have been avoid· ed by nppUcatIon ot the. jurisdictIonal provision of the treatY. Cf. Notes. 64 Harv.L.Rev. 166 (1050): 50 Col.L.Rev. 862 (1930): and particularly· Barltch.Conflict Law In U. S. Treaties (1053) 20ff.; N~ baum, American·SwIss Private International Law, .. 47 Col.LRev. 186 (1947). also discussing the Swlssdecisions under the treaty i ~. 116 note IT.

17. Owing to the non-exlstence of a concept of jurisdiction similar to that of Anglo-American countries, these questions are dealt with In continental countries under the heading of "international procedural law" (f 1). Cf. Riezler, Internatlonales Zlvllprozessrecht (1049): Mathies, die Deutsche IntematIonale Zustllndlgkeit (1955); Neuhaus, Internationales Zlvllprozessrecht und IPR. 20 Ro.bels Z. 201 (1055); NlederlUnder, lIaterielles Recht und Verfnhrens-

at Law nnd Extrnterrltoriul ,\ppllcatlon ot tile Antitrust Laws. (13 Ynle LJ. fI:ID. 8M (1051) says: .. • • • [TIhe United States desire to protect the foreign trade nnd commerce of American nationals, and even its complete cont'tction tbat its own laws and methods are the way of salvation for all theworld. cannot justify an assertion of peaal· jurisdiction over the commerclnl actlvltles nbroad of the nationals ot other countries." But see Whitney, Sources of Contlict between International Law and the Antitrust Laws, Id. at 653: Kronstein. Xeue Amerikanische Lehren zom Interno.tIonalen Privntrecl1t 1m Lichte des Amerikanisch-europiilsdlen Knl'tellkonflikts, Festschrift llartin Wolff (1952) 2251T.; Knskell nnd Schlesinger, llonopole, Trusts. Kartelle In Ameriko. und Deutschland (1951); Wengler, Laws Concerning Unfalr Competition and the Con.fllct of Laws, ~ Am.J.Comp.L. 167 (1D5G); Comments, 42 Corn.L.Q. 390 (1957): 7 lOami LQ.· 400 (1953): 26 Ford.L.Rev. ;SID (1007); 69 Ho.".L.Rev. 14& (1956) : 43 Geo.L.J. 661 (1955); Blbllography, 12 N.Y.C.B.A. RecOrd 303 (105i). Concerning efforts towards an International regulation, see Domke. The United No.· tions Draft Convention on Restrictive Business Practices. 4 Int.Comp.L.Q. 129 (1955). See also N.Y. C.B.A., National Security and Foreign Pollq in ApPlication of American Antitrust Laws to Commerce wtth Foreign Nations (1951) i and Infra. note 25.

25. Lenrned Ranel. .T.. Cnlted States T. Aluminum. Co. of Americn. 148 F.:!d 416, 443 (2d Cir.1945). ~ the line of ense$ from American Bnno.na Co. T'. UnltM Fmlt Co.. 218 U.S. 347, 20 S.Ct. !ill (1929), through Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States. :1~ U.S. 386, II;') :i.Ct. :m (1045) nnd Tlmken Roller Rearing Co. v. U. S., 341 U.S. 593, il S.Ct. Oil (1051). to ~teele v. Bnlova 'Vatch Co., 3H U.S. 280, i3 s.et. 252 (1952): Holophnne Company, Inc. v. United States. 119 F.Supp. 114 (S.D.. OhIo 105·1), uff'd memo. 352 U.S. 008, 71 ~.Ct. 144 (10-36). For 0. similar holding of the German Snpreme Court. see RGZ 140, 25 (1933). But cL '-nnlty Fnir ll1l1s v. T. Eaton Co., 234 F.2d 633· (2d Clr.l006), nff'g with modlflc. 133 F.Supp. 522 (S.D.N.Y.1055), cert. den. aa2 U.S. 811, 11 S.Ct. 96 (10-;;6) declaring nppllcation ot the Lanham Act to a Canadian infringement "unconstitutional;" dis· cussed ~ote, 51 Am.J.lnt.L. 103 (10GT). See ulso Ollver. Extraterritorial Appllcntion of United States Legislation nglilnst Restrictive or Unfair Trade Practices, 51 Am.J.lnt.L. 3SO (1051); Jessup, Trans· national Law (1956) 7'4; ~ote. 42 Corn.L.Q. 390 (l95i) : Fugate. Foreign Commerce- and the Anti· trust Laws (1958) 20. 52; Petitpierre, L'nppllcatlon du. droit antitrust des Etats UDis d'Am~rlque iI. leur commerce exterieur (1956); Kahn-Freund, Extraterritorini Application of Antrltrust Laws, A.B.A. Proceedings Sec. Int. Comp.L. 1000~, 33 If.: Kramer, The Application of the Sherman Act to ForelgD. Commerce, 41 lIarq.L.Rev. 210 (1958); Homburger. Sol Schw.J.Z. 91 (1958); ~ote, 42 Corn.L.Q. 300 (1051) : infra § 215 note 36, • 188 note 6.








property rights within its reach. II· Whether the "jurisdiction" of American courts in 'so dealing with foreign transactions and citizens will be recognized abroad is a matter for the confiicts law of the foreign country.·'

While not always phrased in tenns of jurisdiction, the question seems pertinent here, whether certain federal statutes such as those regulating labor conditions 18 or tort claims against the Government,l9 are applicable in those areas which since the start of the second world war, in varying ways and degrees, have been drawn into the orbit of United c. JURISDlcrION "IN REM" AND States interests. Statutes using ~ords such "IN PERSONAM" as "possession" or "jurisdiction of the United States" will be applicable to the historical The difference between these two types of "possessions" of the United States. These jurisdiction is primarily significant in two include Puerto Rico,3\) the Virgin Islands, respects, which historically (though perhaps and American Samoa, although in certain not rationally) are related to each other: the 26. Cities SeM'lce Co. T. McGrath. 342 U.S. 830, 12 manner pf service of process and the effect S.Ct. 334 (1952) (domestJc nearotlable bea1'er bonds of judgments. As wID 'be seen in greate.r delocated outside the United States under Trading with the Enemy Act). See In general Symposium. . tail later (§ 58), an in personam judgment Enem~ Property, 11 La\\'" & Cont.Frob. 1 (1945); can, with certain exceptions, be enforced Cheatham Cn!«'llOOk ToU. 737f. as to an assets of the def~dBnt wherever 27. Ct. British Nylon Spinners J.d. ,'. Im)"K!rial Chem· located, but only against this defendant. The lcal Industries Ld•• (1sm4) 1 Cb. 37 (19w). d(!Jl~in~ recognition to an injunction In United State~ T. effect of an in rem judgment (§ 26), on the Imperiol Chemiml Indtlstrles. Ud .. ]00 F.Ht1JlJl. G04 other hand, though limited to the res as to (S.D.N.Y.]n:;l I. 1o:i F.Supp. 21fi (S.D.N.Y.ll)u:!). 111fra §J 51 note 11. 00 note 3. See also Stelndorff. which it has been recovered, is said to extend 7 N.J.W. 374 (1954). to "all persons in the world."32 The fact that 28. ct. Vermllya·Brown Co. T. Connell. 3.'lii U.R. 3... personal claims may be based on "quasi in 69 S.Ct. ]40 (19481. reb. den. 33r. l~ .S. fl2S, Oil S.Ct. em!! (1949) (Bermuda-Fair Labor Standards Act of rem jurisdiction" (§ 29) and property claims 1938. 02 Stat. 1060): Foler Bros., Inc. T. Fllnrdo. 33(i on personal jurisdiction, often causes confuU.S. 281, 69 S.Cl. o'ili (1949) (Iraq and Iran-Eight Hour Law, 40 'C.S.e.A. §§ 324. 325a). ~ ntf;o Benz sion. The distinction between "in rem" and T. Companin NaTiera Hidalllo, S.A.. 3r!3 U.S. 138. "in personam" actions is often preferable,
'jj S.Ct. 099 (19;:);) (forclJnl ve~el in American port -Labor Manaltement Relatlonf; Act. 29 U.S.C.A. I 141). See also infra § 205 notes 22, 23.

respects importantdifierences exist between those areas "incorporated" in the United States and all others. Varying decisions may be reacned concerning territories subject to foreign sovereignty but controlled by the United States, such as the Canal Zone and Guantanamo Bay, the Pacific Islands and various leased bases and occupied areas. The jurisdiction conferred by Congress upon American courts in these territories will have to be examined in each case in the light of precedent.31

"therefore, to that between "in rem" and "in

.tpersonam" jurisdiction. 33
From this terminology there must be dis1:inguished that prevailing in admiralty where, by jurisdiction over libels in rem, we -refer to suits seeking to enforce maritime -nensagainstthe ship itself rather than to .actions in rem in the ordinary sense.34



The traditional description of the American scheme of "local" jurisdiction seems decep33. Even this dichotomy is 10gicalJy Dot fJawless sinee all legal relations coneern persons and those in. volv1ng rlgbts in rem a1'e dlstlngulsbable only on



If" .i£.'



.the ground that as to them tbe res Is more proml. Dent. See Paton, A 1'ext·Book of Jurlsprudenee (2d eLl951) 2321l'.: Dlas and Hu,:bes, Jurisprudence (1957) 211ft.; Cook 64; Kocourek, Jural Relations aDd their Olassitlcation. SO Tale 1..J. 232 (1921): Radin, A Restatement. of Bohfeld, 51 Bnrv.LRev. 1155 (1938). On the Roman concept, see Schulz, OlassJeaJ Boman Law (1951) 32. For the traditional · distinction, see JUStice Bolmes In Tyler T. Judges ot · the Oourt of Beglstration, 17u Moss. 71.76,50 N.E. 8l2. 814 (1900); Goodricb lOS. Against ~'overs1m· plUlcatlol1." Itedlker ,'. Uediker, 35 Co1.2d 700, BOO, 22J P.2d I, 4 (19GO). Mueb could be gained from a comparatlve analysis of this dichotomy with the continental classification ot "ordering." "declaratory." aml "transformmg"·judllPlents. Rbeinstein. Book Review. 83.Pub. . L. 551, 553-554 (1959). In the Ught ot this classUlcatlon the obsolescent common law distinction between in rem and in personam jurisdiction could gain a new lease on Ufe. 34. For a discussion ot the history and the merits of this distinction, see Black, A"dmlralty Jurisdiction: Critique and Suggestions, 50 CaLL.ReT. 259 (1950). See also Gilmore and Black, Admiralty (195;) 510 i Farnum. Admiralty Jurisdiction and Ampbibious Torts, 43 Yale L.J. 84 (1933); Morrison, The Bem~ dial Powers of the Admiralty, 43 Yale L.J. 1 (1933) i Putnam, .How the Federal Courts were. Given Ad. lDiralty Jurisdiction, 10 Corn.L.Q. 460 (1925). Cf. Madruga T. Superior Court, S4G U.S. G56, 74 S.Ct. 298 (1954). Even here the distinction between the two types of jurisdiction Is "question-begglDg • • . Strlctly speaklPg, all rights eventually are "personal' . • • The crudal question is: what Is the fair way to proceed against these interests?" Frankfurter, J., d1ssentJDg In Vanderbilt T. Vander. bllt, 854 U.S. 416, 428, 7'i S.Ct. 1860, 1865 (1957). See also The Monrosa v_ Oarbon Black Export, Inc., 359 U.S. ISO, 184, '79 S.Ot. 710, 718 (1959) ("a distinCtion the purpose of which is impossible to £rasp," four J ustioes ·dissentiDg).

tive1y simple. Jurisdiction "over" a person may, with certain exceptions' (-§§ 27 ~.)., be acquired if and 'only ..if. he ."is personally present·within the state."·· ,And every state may take jurisdiction "over things within its territory." 38 But far· from .treating -these propositions, as has been suggested by eminent authorIty, as "incapable of change by s1:a:tute" "unlike other prin¢ples 'of the common law," 3' American courts are beconung increasingly prone to decline. or assume jurisdiction contrary tQ these propositions where they have proveq too broad for the convenience of courts or parties, or too narrow to satisfy proper demands for judicial protection. 38 Any conscious reformulation of the "rule" as actually applied.in its so-called "exceptions," however, has been impeded by ins~ce upon what may be tenned· the "power myth" of jurisdiction.Most discussions of the alleged power rationale of jurisdiction are expressly or impliedly based upon Justice Holmes' much quoted statement that the "foundation of jurisdiction is physical power." 40 If this statement is understood as a reference to the primitive psychological requirement of the parties' submission to the' judge's authority, it may have some basis in the early history of most, if not all, legal. systems.U But if
35. Rest. § 'jj. 36. Rest. f 98. See Arndt T. Grlggs, 134 C.S. 31G, 10 S.Ct. 557 (1890); Lefiar 82-42. 37. 1 Beale, Contlict of Laws (193G) 276. See also Id .• at 839ft'. At one. time tbis doctrine seems eveJl to ba"e affected the deTelopment of chOice of law rules. Note, 49 Barv.L.UeT. 319 (193U). 38. See also for English law Cbeshlre 106-122. 39. Eb1'epzweig, The Transient Rule ot Personal Jurisdiction: The "Power" Myth and Forum Con· venlens, 65 Yale L.J. 289 (1956). 40. McDonald v. Mabee, 243 u..S. 90, 91, 3; S.Ct. 843 (1917). See Goodrich § 73 i Cbeshire 10;. 41. Cf., e.g., Sallc Law (496 A.D.) tits. I, 56, Bender· son, Select Historical Documents 1D the Middle Are!! (1892) 176, 187 i Thayer, Tbe 'Older Modes ot Trial. I) BarT.L.Rev. 45, 65 (1891): 1 Holdsworth. BIFtory ot EngUsb Law (1922) 219 i 2 Id. 105: Bluct,stone, Commentaries on the Laws ot England, Ill·. 287 (2 Jones ed.1916, at 1874). On the slow frowth

29. Ct. United States T. Spelar, 388 U.S. 211, 70 S.Ot.

10 (1949) (Newfoundland): Cobb T. United States, 191 F.2d 604 (9tb Clr.19al), cert. den. 342 U.S. 913. 72 S.Ot. 360 (1952) (Okinawa) i Burna v. United States, 240 F.2d 720 (4tll Clr.1957) (Okinawa). The above Cll8eS 011 deal with the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2G80(k). See also Callas v. United States. 253 F.2d 888 (2d Oil'. 1958), cert. den. 357 U.S. 936, 78 S.et. 1384 (1.958) (KwajalelP). 30. Concerning tbe special position of the Cammonwealth of Puerto Rioo, see e. g. United States v. Rlos, 140 F.Supp. 376 (D.C.Puerto Rico 1956) (Firearms Act).

31. S. W. G1'een. ApplicabfUty of American Laws to Overseas Areas Controlled by the United States. 68 BarT.L.ReT. 781. 788 (1955); Comment, Internntionat La\\'" and Friendly F01'elgn Forces, 32 N.T.U.L. ReT. 351 (1957). Tbe independent status of Indian tribes tor contllct of laws purposes seems to be virtually limited to tbe recognition of tribal marriages. Begay v. Miller, 70 Ariz. 380.222 P.2d 624 (1950). But see Deo T. State, 272 P.2d 473 (Okl.1954). On the status ot enc1aTes, see Boward v. Commissioners of Sinking Fund, 344 U.S.. 624, 73 S.Ot. 46.j (l953); Board of County Commtssloners v. Donaho, 35G P.2d 2G; (0010.1960). 32. Infra § 26 note 4.

















Ch. 1.

§ 26



retical teSts as Dicey's "efficiency" and "submission," 46 have long yielded to an elaborate system of statutory rules designed to treat fairly both the plaintiff and the defendant.0&7 Such rules now permit courts to take jurisdiction with sole regard to the domestic contacts with the case. 3 In this country, too, fairness to the partiesPhysical power has never been the foundation of the American law of jurisdiction..a has increasingly become th~ determining To be sure, Story, in his analysis of inter- factor in the development of the law of jurisnational conflicts, postulated a jurisdictional diction. This development expresses itself requirement of the person or thing "being in due process requirements of reasonable within the temtory," because uotherwise, notice and fair opportunity to be heard, as there can be no sovereignty exerted" '" But well as in a growing emphasis on the conhe merely repeated the language of a publi- tacts of the case (§§ 27 ff., 33). Desire to cist sovereignty theory, long obsolete, which maintain a balance between these elements he had borrowed from Boullenois and other has led the courts to stress the requirements civilians. Modern English doctrine bas al.. of notice and fairness wherever the contact ways founded its jurisdictional principles on element seems lacking or weak. This is the more realistic rationalizations;'~ Such thea- case in dealing with the in rem jurisdiction
of arrest as a metuls of commencinlt the action. see lllUar. Civil Procedure of the Trial Conrt in Illstorical Perspecth'e- (10:52) l'4ff. For n psycholOJticnl study of another o~lete theorem see Ebrenzwelg. A Psyc:boanalysis of ~egllgence, 41 ~.\V.U.L.ltev. 855 (1953).
42. .T.A.O. Smitb. Personal .Tnrisdlction, 2 Int. &; Comp.L.Q. 5tO, ·511ff•• ~2 (1053).

used to explain the modern law of jurisdiction, .Justice HoImes' aphorism is highly misleading and may, like Dicey's contemporary "principle of'effectiveness," be properly stig.. matized as an expression of the peculiar "courageous cynicism" of the young century.u .

over intangibles (§ 26), or the in personam it will prove easier to follow the vagaries of jurisdiction over nonresidents and foreign the law of jurisdiction in rem and in personcorporations (§ ZT if.). That the develop- am.~ ment in this direction has been slower and the unattractiYe "prospect of opening large numbers more hesitant than might be desirable, may of judgments to collateral attack on new grounds." in part be due to a persistent reliance on Cf. CUrrie, Book Renew. i3 Harv.L.Rev. 801, 806 power ideologies. But, as has been suggested (1960). See Ehrenzweig in Reply 0 J .Pub L. 828 336-331 (1960). , . . above, the common law of forum non conveniens, with its stress on contacts and fair.. But see on the enhanced "flavor of ProcedUral process already strong." of the doctrine. Schaefer. J .• dis: ness, unhampered by a mythology of power senting In Cotton v. LoUisville and ~ashvil1e R. R. Co.. 14 ll1.2d 144. 152 N.E.2d 385, 402 (1058); and and sovereignty, may yet create a new Ameri.. the endorsement of Judge Hand's equation (supra can law of jurisdiction based on the forum note i) in Lnn v. ChicagO & Yorth We~tern Ry Co 14 Wls.2d :rlO. 111 X.W.2d lii8, Itr'!-l63 (1001): ., conveniens.49 With this perspective in mind,


43. Dodd, Jurisdiction in Personal Actions. 23 Ill.L Rev. 421, 428. 434. 435 (1029). finds snpport for his

10 APp.Cns. 45, 40. In the next lending case of Carrick v. Hancock. [18051 Q.B., 12 T.LR. iJO. de-fendants had not only nppeared hut cOllnter-claimed. All that can he found in earlier cases even seemingly ~UpportlDg a "power" role, is a dictum by Baron Parke in Genel'lll Steam Navigation Co. v. Guillou. 11 1(. Ie W. 871, 804. 1m Eng. Rep. 1061, 1068 (1843) ("temporary presence"), where, however, the question of proper service was not in is- . sue.

49. See nlso Schlesinger. l(ethofls of ProgreAA in Condict of LtlWS: Some Comments on }O~hrenzwelg's Treatment of "Transient" .JIII·i~dl('t1on. 0 .T.Pub.L 313. 3'l:!-:l25 (lOtiO): (·owen •.\ Rrltll'h View. hi. at 303. :n3: Cnt'ers. Book Ue,·lew. 4i CnUf.I~Rev. 414. .uS (1!)!'I!)). A future 1m\' nf fornm con"eniens nPefI not eliminate cxercltce- of tllscretion. Cf. Letiar. The Convm'glng r.lmit~ of Stnre .Jllrhldlctlonlll Power. 0 .J.Pl1b.L. :!82. :!!l0-:!1)1 (1060). Xnr need that tloctrine. by elevatinf: forum non convpniens to "jurlsdictloJULl :5tatus" in our current :sense. rn1se

SO. Dlssntisfnctlon with tilL;; tliChotomv has been ;;tendily growing in this t'OlIntry. Witb the progreSSing expansion of per:;onlll jurisdiction (§ 21) and limitation of jurlsdlctlun in rem (§ 26) traditionnl formal fUstlnction.q hll\'e heJ:11D to disappear. Leltar. The ConverJ:ng Umits of Stute Jurisdictional PO\\"eI'. !) J.Pnb.L. :!S2. :!..'W...:!.~ (1!100). It hIlS heen suggested persnMh·"ly thnt the underlying functional distinctions could perhaps he more properl?, exp~1 by continental temlinology. Rheinstean, Book ReTfe\v. 8 J.Pub.L. :',,)1. ijoj.'hjij.l (1059). supra note 33. ~ee nlso generally Raape 2U-243..

L ACTIONS IN REM § 26. What today is described as an action in rem differs from both the Roman concept to which it owes its name,l and the Anglo-American concept which "in the fullest sense [designates] a proceeding in which the thing itself occupies the position. of the defendant,"· as in an admiralty suit against a vessel or a suit by the Government against the merchandise in a customs case. CommOnly,3 we can proceedings in rem those
I. See Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank &; Trust Co.. 339 U.S. 306~ 70 S.Ot. 652 (1950); Buckland and lIc.:..~air, Roman Law and Common Law (1036) 66; sopra t 25 note 33.

opposition to the power rheory In the existence of dE'Clal'lltofY judgments.- continuing jurisdiction l\Rd jurisdiction hy consent. Among many other in· l:t1aDces In which jurisdiction is Independent from Physical power-, mention ~hould ~Iltflce of the ~prend­ ing acceptance of malllnJt as n proper method of personal service. See infra § ~6 notes 31, 35, 36; § 21 note 40: aDd' in genernl Ehrenzwelg, Tblt Trnnsieet Rule of Jurisdiction: The "Power" lIytb nnd Forum Conveniens. 6G 'Ynle L.J. :!SO (1056); JnJl'e. Judicial Re\"iew: Constitutional and Jurisdictional Fact. iO Harv.LRev. 053 (lOOn. Cavers. Book Review, 41 Callf.L.Rev. 414, 416 (1059), though conSidering the question undecided. sees power ns no "obsolescent ingredient of our jurisdictional tbeory.... 44. Story 450. Of. Nussbaum 32 f. 45. The Privy Council in the lending case of Sirdar Gurdynl Singh v. Raja' of Faridlcote, [1894] A.C. 610, 683 found territorial Jurisdiction to attach "upon o.ll persons either' permanently or temporarily resident within tbe territory while tbey are within it." It will be- noted tbat this· test. in addition to tbe '"pOwer" fact of presence. relates to tbe substantial contact of residence. Cf. Berkeley v. Thompson, [1884]

4&. See Cbeshlre l09ff.; GravesDn 325ft.: Dicey's ConDlct of Laws lith ad. 1058) :!2 ft.
Common Law Procedure Act. 1852. now Order Rules 1 nnd 2 of tbe Rules, of the Supreme Court. Annual Practice (1002); Graveson IlIff.; Cbeshire 341ft. Concerning otber member nntlons of the Common\vealth. see ~.Y.C.B.A.. Americnn Judgments Abroad. D Record 301 (1954). As early ns li8t·, "most ot tbe practitioners 'vere clear as to the regularity" of personul service outside England. Bourke v.' Lora'lIacdonald, Dickens 381. 21 Eng.Rep. 309 (1781). For an excellent analysis of the law of the United Klngdom and the Commonwealth, see Cowen, A. Brltlsb View, 0 J.Pub.L. 303 (1060). See also infra t 28 note4l. 48. On a similar continental development stressing the defendant's "general forum," I.e. the concept of a specIfied' court at which the defendant can be most fairly sued, see Engelmann-Millnr, A History of Continental Civil Procedure (1927) 6: Stumberg. Cases on The ConDlet of Lnws (1956) Sf; Pillet.. JurisdIction over Foreigners. 18 Harv.LRev. 325, 385 (1005) ; Karlgren, Internationell Prlvnt-ocb Processriitt (lOGO) 152ft.; Rlezler 183ft. See also supra note 12.


proceedings against persons which affect the interests in a thing, "not merely of particular persons but of all persons in the world, . . as distinguished from a proceeding brought to dect the interests in the thing of particu.. lar persons only, which is called a proceeding quasi in rem."" Once the ''whole world" is properly understood to mean all persons potentially interested in the thing (infra.. 2),.
quasi In rem AU other actions except those In personam. GuIda v. Second Nat. Bank, 323 iltass. 100, 80 N.E.2d 12 (l948). See- also Rest. Second, Tent. Dratt No.4· (1951) 11: Leftar 33_

Rest., Judgments (1942) § 32, comment (a); Rest. § 98. comment (a). See the companltive SymPOSIum. on "Real Aetions"in 20 TttI.L..Rev. 635 (1955): Cook. The Jurisdiction of Sovereign States. nod tbe ConDlct of Laws, 31 CoLL.Rev. 368 (1931): COOk, The Powers of Courts In Equity. 15 Col.L.Rev. 31. 46 (1915) ; Fraser. A.ctions In Rem, 34-= Corn.L.Q, 29

2. llillar. Civil Procedure of the Trial Court In Historical Perspective- (1952) 311: supra f 25 note


3. The lIassachusetts·court apparently· limits tbe

terminology t» suits "against the property It. self as In :ulmlralty", designating as proceedings



See also generally Comment, 13 Harv.L.ReV'. 909,
948-966 (1960).




.An :elaborate body of law based on a conrelated to that of actions in rem has ~.~iS!:roVim up under Section 1655 of the Federal -.:Judicial Code which confers in rem or quasi :~ rem jurisdiction UpOn federal distriet ·.·.eourts "to enforce any lien upon or alaim to, . ,~r to remove any incumbrance or lien or <.Cloud upon· the title to, rea1-or personal prop...erty within the district." 18 Here again the -.futility of the power rationale (§ 25) is shown .,by the rule requiring location within the dis.met only at the time of the filing of the suit.19 #On the other hand, the existence .alone of . property within the district is not a sufficient basis of jurisdiction,to but the suit must be "directed primarily against the property." 11


·and once those persons .are increasingly pro.Proceedings in rem in this sense merely tected by requirements of individual notice -exclude -the second type of -proceedings (infra 3), it becomes more meaningful ·to quasi in rem in which the plaintiff asserts juxtapose with proceedings in personam a claim against the defendant personally., and (§ 27) , all those proceedings which are seeks to compel to the ·satisfaction of his brought to affect interests in a thing. Pro- claim the application of property of the deceedings in rem in this sense include actions fendant, by attachment or garnishment. for the registration of title,l5 to quiet title,6 These proceedings are more properly dealt for partitkm,' for the division of community with in the context of personal actions.u assets,S proceedings in probate (U 50, 52), Judicial disaffection for the largely illusory eminent domain,9 escheat; 10 actions to essafeguards of notice and service in cases tablish ownership in corporate shares; U based upon jurisdiction in rem (to be dis. and probably suits to compel conveyance of ·cussed presently) may have induced courts land,12 and the establishment of a trust in to insist upon the "in personam" character land.13 of certain proceedings otherwise akin to statu This rationale may not 5. See Robinson T. KcrrlJmn. 151 Oal. 40, 90 P. 129 us actions in rem. (19Oi). See also Dean ,'. Gregory. 318 S.W.2(l 549 only account for the near-general in person(Ky.1958) (suit to expunge marriage certificate). am theory of annulment suits (§ 91) and the 6. See Park ,.. Powers, !! Cnl.!!d 590, 42 P.2d '15 progressive abandonment of the in rem the(1935). ory in the law of·divorce (§§ ~4 ff.), but also 7. See e.J:. Robertson T. Stone, 199 '7a. 41, 97 S.E.2d for several leading, though isolated, decisions '139 (1007). 8. McElroy T' McElroy, 32 Ca1.2cl 828. 198 P.2d 6S3 following the same trend in the law of cus(1948); I Benle. Conflict of Law~ (1~) 437: Rest.. tody 16 and paternity.l'J


An in rem judgment is -sai9:1o~;valid . against the "whole world",:in~nt.mstito:i1lll
justices dissentinlt. dently granted. AJ:aln~t the dlst1n~1lrmative assertion and defensc,..8ec.:NOtc.;-;c:r~ L.Be\'. 047. 650 (1957). The ·'~in rem"'~roeter ~ '8 paternity suit has been den1edns .JlOt.]lrecludlng relJtlgatton of the Issuc in a ~tion. People T. KovaceVich, 19 Cal.Allp•. 83G,.;aao.~ 807, 809 0937). But see as to adO)'J#on -;t';fi:8·_te 60. See also MUller.FreienfelS, ,Zur :koiiisiOu8ricbtlichen RcbandlunJ: del' Abstamm~:~~he und FamlUe 14; (195;); Aubert. 53 Seliw.J:z. '1Jli3 (1957); Pfenninger. Die Vaterschaftf;kl~ im lPR. 53 Schw.J.Z. 319 (10M); Kegel 833ff.: Benrlch. ri Ehe und Famille 122 (1958); infra § 00 note 15, § 84. For an international conflicts case. see Duerr T. Wittmann. u A.D.2d 320, 171 N.Y.S.2d 4+J (1008). See also lDtra. § 142 note 0.·


to ('reditors. Frankel \'. I\oyd. 100 Cnl. 008. 39 P. 439 nf;fi:il: Hnnk of Amerlcn ,'. lJentz,4 CaI.2d 322, 49 l'.:'hl 2W (l93d).

*32: Anno.• 126 A.L.n. 004.



• .'.



9. See e.;=. Walker T. Hnt('binsnn. 3.'i:! U.S. 112. ;; S. Ct. 200 (lfJ[)O): Collins ,'. Wichltn. 225 F.2d 132 (10th Cir.1Uau). cert. den. 350 'CoS. SSO. 76 S.Ct. 140 (195:); Comment. 24 U.Chi.L.lle,·. W3 (10:;7).
10. See e.J:. St:mdar(l on CO. T. New Jer8('Y. 341 U.S. 428. 'il S.('t. s:!2 on!ill. S(>C also People T. Onc 10·n Chl"'rolet ('.oupe. Engine No. AA4300G2. 37 CaL2(l 283.231 P.2d 832 (]n:;]) (forfeiture): United Statl's ,'. BlCllllby, 2:j7 F.!!d 278, 280-281 (3d Olr. 1958) (snme). II. Holmes T. Camp, 210 N.Y. 350. SOl. 14 N.E. 841, 844 (1910). (ll~tln~uished In Mo\·jtenstern ,'. Freudenberg. 7 )l11«:.2d 273, 10:; X.Y.R:!d 034 (In:;i). III reliance on Jackson ,'. Jllcl.t;Ou. 290 N.Y. 512. 40 N.E. 2d 088 (1943) (inTaUdation of sepnration agreement). 12. Churchill T. Bigelow, 333 Mass. 190, 129 N.E.2d 903 (1955); Rest. § 101; Anno., 173 A.L.R. 9&1. See also Otis on &: Gas Corp. T. Maler, 74 Wyo. 13i. 284 P.2d G53 (1955) (011 and gas lease); Assoc. Trullk Lines, Inc. ,'. Baer, 346 Mich. lOG, 'i7 N.W.2d 384 (1950). 13. See in general Anno., 15 A.LR.2d 614. For cases involving trusts in personalty, see Gulda T. Second Nat. Bank, 3.23 Mass. 100, 80 N.E.2d 12 (1948); Brownewell Y. Columbus Clay Mfg. Co., 166 Ohio St. 824. 142 N.E.2d 511 (10:;7). See also Dyonlslo T. McWUllams, 139 Colo. 308, 338 P.2d 684 (1959) (constructive trust) i Su v. Sax, 294

F .2(1133, lart-lar (ath Clr. 1901) (action to set tru!:t aRidc); and till' cn~ annlysi~ in U('!;L Second, Tellt. Draft No. 4 (l057) 54-00; infra lIote 00.


Sec infra f 29.

15. See c.lt. Witzjlall v. WltzJ:all. 334 Mass. 3G;j. 13G N.E.2d 210 (105U) (declaration of marital status). 16. May T. Anderson, 345 U.s. ri2S, 73 S.Ot. 840 (1052). Intra I 87. 17. Hartford ,'. Superior Court, 47 CaI.2d 450, 3M P.2d 1 (1050). declaring a patemlty suit to be in personam, but conceding that adjudication of Utile nonexistence of tile parent child relationship" mnr be ill rem in onalo/O" to diTorce. See also In re Himll, 'il Ariz. 17, 222 P.2d 991 (1900); Beckett \". State ex ret Uotllert, 4 Ind.App. ISO. 80 N.E. {j3G (1892) ; Day v. Batton, 210 Ga. 149, 83 S.E.2d G (1954) (suit by putative father); N.'t.Dom.Re1.Law § 133. But see Urquhart T. Urquhart, 185 MIse. 915, 57 N.'t.S.2d 734 (1945), atrd 270 App.Dil'. 759. 59 N.Y.S.2d 921 (1946); 1d. 188 Misc. 61S, 66 N.Y.S.2d 472 (1946), aff'd 272 App.DI\". 60, 09 N.Y.S.2d 57 (1947), aJrd 297 N.Y. 689, 7i N.E.2d '1 (1947); ld. 196 Mise. 604, 92 N.Y.S.2d 484 (1940); Fordham \". Marero. 2;3 F. 61, 67 (1st Oir.1921). Concerning legitimation see infra § 49. Hammersteln v. Superior Court, S41 U.S. 401. 71 S.Ot. 820 (1951), is inconclusive. An unreported decision by a Oalifornla Intermediate court had denied a.writ of prohibition against a lower court judgment' holding against an aUeged father though possibly lacking personal jurlsdlction over him. The Supreme Court, four

in personam judgment which affects only the parties to the action. : This statement requires modification. the one hand, "eonsent divorces" may now be effective as against 'strangers not: even priVy to the parties (§§ 74(3». On ·the other hand, an in rem judgment cannot affect persons in other states except as to 'their relation to the res, not even as an adjudication of the facts (§ 59(1»." Thus, foreclosure proceedings upon COnstructive service against a non-resident mortgagor do not· affect a deficiency suit in another state.23 Nor can an in rem discharge of a mortgage in the state pt the situs affect the continued existence of personalliability;·· or a judgment to clear title, an in personam action for breach of a lease.U And a sister state divorce based on jurisdiction in rem upon constructive service cannot prejudge the rights to alimony (§ ~9). Nor may "a person against. whom in personam liability is asserted. . transform that liability into a res by depositing money into court and thus enable the .court to proceed "to an adjudication, by in rem or quasi in rem process, of the defendant's in personam claims against the plaintiff." 26


22. Bolmes. J., in Becher ,'. Couture Laboratories, 270 U.S. 388, 49 S.Ct. 356 (19!ID): Rest. Judgment~ (1942) § 73; supra note 4. 23. Pennsylvania Co. T. Watt. 151 F.2d oni (!ith Cir 19·Ui); Anno. 42 A.L.n. 410. 480. S(>C 81110 Angcl ,'. BullinJtton. 380 U.S. 183, 07· S.Ct. 007 (1047); and 1 Chafee and Simp..c;on, Cases on Equity (1934) In:! if. i infra § 58 note 18. 24. See e. g., Combs ' .. Combs, 2~O Ky. lr;~, 00 S.W.2(1 368 (1933) (dictum); infra § uS note 1U. 25. Gardner T. Darling Stores Corp.. 242 F.2d 3 C2d Oir. 1957). See also supra note 17 (paternity suitl; Freeman T. Alderson, 119 U.S. 1&, 7 S.Ot.1oo (1~tiI (action to try title not resulting In personal judg. ment for cost against nonresidellt I: . Comb~ ,'. Combs, 24fJ Ky. 155,60 S.W.2d 368 (1033); AUen 13. Du Mont Labs., Inc. ,'. Marcalus Mfg. 00., 30 N.J. 290, 152 A.2d 841, 844 (1959) (easement). 26. 3 Moore's Federal Practice· (2d edt 1948) I 22.00, commenting UPOll New York Life Ins. Co. ,'. Dun· le\':f, 241 U.S. 518, 30 S.Ct. 613 (1010). See also Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Du noure. 123 F.Supp. jaG (S.D.N.i.l934).

·18. 28 U.S.C.A. 5 1055. See Bart and Wechsler. The Federal Courts and tile Federal System (1058) 944ff.: Blume, Actions quasi in rem under Section 1655, Title 28, U.S.C. 50 Mlch.L.Ile'·. 1 (1951); Anno., 30 A.L.lt2d 208. 218. For a case under a similar statute, see Leftcourt Rea1tr Corp. T. Sands, lIS A. 2d 428 (De1.Oh.1955), aif'd ll7 A.2d· 30G (DeL1955).
.:19. See Bart and Wecllsler,op. cit. supra note 18, at.952 if. But cr. Cbase T. Wetzlar. ~ U.S. 79. 32 S.Ot. 639 (1912) (unlawfulness of removal to GerlDaDy no substitute for location within district) C. • • ..the power conferred rests upon a real not an imaginary base, It at 89). See also infra § 27 notes 22, 29; § 29 note 26. "20. Jones T. GOUld. 141 F. 698 (Ohio Clr.l905), aff'd 149 F. 153 (6th Cir.l900). .21. Id. at 700.
Ellrwwtlll Conflict of Laws-6


(LOCAL) JURISDICTION AND PROPER PRO:\S 3. SERVICE OF PROCESS ments and the consequences of non-compliance. Going back to an English statute of 1732 31 COnstructive service, as prescribed in country. generally requires an affidavit by the plaintiff and publication in newspapers; except for Louisiana, where, on a civil law model, a curator ad hoc is appointed to safeguard the interests of the absent defendant.33 But UNo one seriously entertains the notion that newspaper publication. unaccompanied by the mailing of notice, is an effective means of conveying actual notice to the defend.. ant." 34 Consequently. the Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional as violating due process, a New York statute prescribing newspaper publication as the only required form of notice even as to known and reach. able nonresidents in a suit concerning the judicial settlement of a trust company's ac. counts.3l5 And many states have enacted leg.
32. ;) Ceo.

§ 26



Since in rem actions are not necessarily effective against the whole world, there remains as their primary characteristic in modem law the fact that a court may acquire jurisdiction in such actions as to nonresidents by what is generally referred to as "constructive service" of process. n Once the power rationale is abandoned, this service rule must be rationalized on the ground of being fair to the defendant. Indeed, it is said that "property is always in possession of its owner" U and that this possession subjects him to the courts of the situs as to the legal fate of the res; or that owners usually keep informed "of what concernS or may conCern their real estate,. . and on that probability the law may frame its proceedings.":9 But this "caretaker theory" 30 has lost much of its force even if limited to things whose location can be easily ascertained such as land and valuable chattels. With increasing interstate migration and commercial intercourse, much of what seemed reasonable notification at the time when constructive service was first accepted, has long since become a "mere gesture." 31 And constructive service proves entirely inadequate where it is used in proceedings in rem concerning intangibles whose situs is a· fictitious assumption based on legalistic reasoning. Here then, as in the law of in personam judgments, it will be seen that our jurisdictional concepts are undergoing fundamental changes, expressing themselves in new statutory techniques and judicial standards which bear on the notice require..
27. Arndt 'T. Griggs, 134 U.S. 316. 10 S.Ct. 551 (1890); Roller v. Holly, 116' U.S. 398, 20 S.Ct. -nO (1900). See Note, 22 CoLL.Rev.1952 (1022); and In general, see 1 lIerrill On Notice (1052, Supp.l956) H 600- • .) lei. 64511'. u., ..

this .

islation providing for service by mail or personal service outside the state.3'f Little is gained. on the,.other hand, by the usual statutory requirement of due diligence in. attempting to learn the defendant's whereabouts. Indeed, compliance with this requirement may be dispensed with in proper cases, for "the law does not require the doing of vain and idle things." 38 But where the plaintift has fraudulently concealed from the defendant the service of summons by publication, such service is invalid "even though the letter of the law had been complied with." 38 In general, attack against a judgment in rem properly based on constructive service is possible because of non-compliance with
sis of the ltullane Cose, 100 U.Pn.L.RcT. :ro5 nmm: Blume and .Joiner, .Turisdlctlon and JmlJ:melUs (If);12) 31)3 for turther references: O'Den. Adeqlluey of ~f)o tlce-Due Process. 32 Wn.c;h.L.Rev. If);) (lMj): Comment. 24 U.Cbl.L.Rev. W3 (lOOn; Rest. ::second, Tent. Draft No. 4 Urn;'j) § 100. For a statute concemio.: service in eminent domain proceedings followinl: the trend. SPe CaUt.Stats.1oo1. c. mos. 8ee also Comments. :!1 U.eln.L.Rev. 76 (1958), 32 1nd.L.J. 469

the statutory form.4O Reversal of the judg· ment on this ground may render the publisher of the required notice liable in damages..at While an absent enemy alien may be exempted from the effect of constructive service against him .... the Trading with the Enemy Act may subject him indirectly to suit..a3 Whether a defendant constructively served behind an Iron Curtain may thus effectively be subjected to jurisdiction seems doubtful. at least where he is a native of a foreign country,"" and did not have full opportunity to defend the suit..w


Jurisdiction in rem presupposes a situs of the res within the boundaries of the forum state..as As to tangibles, ascertainment of the situs usually offers few problems..n Ade40.


c. 2.1.

Anno., 01 A.L.R. 225.


La.Code Pract. (Dart., 11)42), Arts. 116, 105. See 1so Tex.Rules Clv.Proe. (Vernon, 1948), Rule 244: Kentucky Rev.Stat. (1000) f 300.-130; ..\.fk.Stat. Ann.1047. If 20-&04, wblch prescribe such ap. pointment In addition to publlcation. California had a slmUar statute untll lSi... About this "legacy ot the Partidns." see In generaillillar, JurisdiCtion over Absent Defendants: Two Cbapters in Am:rlcnn Civil Procedure l-! La.L.nev. 321, 329 (1954); supra f 14 note 1l~


·41. Anno., 10 A.L.R.:!d 686.
42. But see e. g. Dorsey \'. Dorser, :w lId. 522. OR .un..Dee. 633 (1869). with exhaU14tlve cliscusslon, and. In general••\ono., 131 d.L..R. 1361. 1366.
43. Trading wltb the Enemy Act. October 6. 1011,40Stat. 411, 50 U.S.C.A.App. § 6. as amended.

34. lllllar, Clvll Procedure of the Trinl Court Ill· Historical Pe~peetlve (1052) 04. But see Arndt 'T. Griggs. 134 U.S. 316. 10 S.Ct. 557 (1800). Sumclent tI;ne tor the defense \VQS required in Roller v. Holly, 1.6 U.S. 308, 20 S.Ct. 410 (1000).
35. l[ullane v. Central Hanover Bank '" Trost Co., supra note 31. To the same effect Wnlker'T Hutchinson, 352 U.S. 112, 11 S.Ct. 200 (1056) (eml~ent domain) ; Wisconsin Elee. Power Co. v. lIilwaukee, 332 U.S~ 048, 11 S.Ct. 324 (1056) (tax assessment): Covey 'T. Somers, 351 U.S. 141, 146. 76 S.Ct. 724, 121 (1935) (tax toreclosure); Moore 011. Inc. v. Snakard, 150 F.Supp. 250 (W.D.Okl.1957)· Tbe Lincoln Tavern. InC.. v. Snader, 165 ObJo st. 61, 133. N.E.2d 606 (1956); New York v. New York, New Haven .4-. Hartford R. R.. 344 U.S. 293. i3 S.Ct. 299 (1953) (bankruptcy organization); State 'T. Stringer. 11 Wyo. 198, 310 P.2d 730 (1951). But see Newark v. Yeskel, 5 N.J. 313,74 A.2d 883 (1050) with Judge Ollpbant's dissent. See alsu Perry, Tbe Mullane Doctr1n~A Reappraisal of StatutOI'7 Notice Requirements. Current Trends in State Legislation (1952); Fraser, Jurisdiction by NecessltJ-An. Analy-

36. See, e. g.. Cnlifornia Code Clv.Proc. If 412. 413; Iowa Rule Clv.Pmc. 60.1; ~.C.Gen.Stat. H 1-!l8tf. (Supp.1D59). Ct. Opinion of the Jnstices, 250 Ala. 202, 66 So.2d 174 (1053): Dnrfee T. Dnrfee, 293 Mass. 472. 200 ~.E. !I!l5 (1036): Benson v. Benson, 201 S.W.2d :!i (Ky.l0itG) (malling sumclent \vitbout actual receipt): :! l(errill on :olotice (1952. Supp. 19(6) H 6271T.; Ross. The Shifting Basls- ot Ju· rh~cliction. 17 lflnn.r.. Rev. 146 (1033); Jlitfe. Judicial Review: Constitutional and Jurisdictional Fact, iO Harv.L.Rev. 05.1, 062t. (1057); Note, 30 Iowa L.Rev. 665 (105·1): Intra t :!1 note 40.

44. On this ground Plodzien \'. Plodzien, 121 X.J.Eq. :!i0. 180 A. ttl1 (lOrn, was di:ltlnguished In Potyok v. Potyok, 31 ~.J.Super. ::34, 106 A.2d 3i'2 (lO'"cH).

See Potyok 'T. Potyok. supra. note 44.


.\s to e. g. Cnllfornill law. see Ebrenzwelg and lillis, Personal Service Outside tbe State: Pennoyer v. Neff in Call1omla, 41 Cllllf.L.Rev., 383 (1053). For further discussion of substituted and constructive service. see Infra § 28, and 1 Witkin, Calitornia Procedure (1954, Supp.195D) 835. See also Com· ment, Constructive Service in New England, 38 B.U. L.Rev. 268 (1058). Cook v. Cook, 161 Or. 414, 118 P.2d 1070 (1041) (Canadian resident). But cf. Empire City Savings Bank v. Sllleck, 08 App.Di'T. 139, 90 N. Y.S. 561 (1004), atr'd without op•. 1SO N.Y. 541, 74 N.E. 1123 11!}():). See In general Anno., 21 A.L.R.2d D29; 1 Witkin. California Procedure (19M, Supp.l951) 830; Infra § 28 note 10.


Pennoyer v. NeJl'; 93 U.S. n4, 721 (1877).


Ballard v. Hunter, 204 U.S. 241, 282, 21 S.Ct. 961 :!69 (1001). - • Comment, iO Harv.L.Rev. 1257, 1261 (1057).

31. Xullane v. Central H~over Bank & Trost Co., 339- U.s. 306. 315, 70 S.Ct. 652 (1950); intra note


39. Patrick v. Patrick, 245 N.O: 195, 95 S.E.2d· "585 (1956) ; Weber- 'T. WillIams.. 13'i Colo. 269. 324 P.2cl·
363 (1058). .

46. See e. g. Baker ,'. Baker, Eccles '" Co., 242 U.S. 304.37 S.Ct. 1G2 (1017); Hanson \'. Dencklll, :JU7 U.S. !!35, 246, 250, is S.Ct. 1228, 1:!36, 1238 (1058). 47. But see e. g. ~orth Carollna Land & Lumber Co. v. Boyer, 101 F. 552 (6th Clr.lOll) (locomotive- in Interstate transit). Fraudulent "lurlng" of the property Into tile state may defeat jurisdiction in rem. lIS does fra.ud or force with regard to Jurisdiction in personnm (I 32). Oklahoma Industrial FInance Corp. v. Wallace,. ISO Okl. 363, 69 P.2d 362 (1931). As to the situs of ships for tax purposes. GUiness v. King Co., 32 Wnsb.2d 503, ~02 P.2d 737 (1949), 6 A.L.R.2d 1367. Rest. Second, Tent. Draft ~o. 4 (1951) f OS, comments t and g, suggest that jurlsdletlon, thougb eDsting O\'er all tangibles located within the state, will not be "exerelsed" where a document embodying title to the chattel is located outside the state, or where the chattel was brougbt into· the stllte without tbe owner's consent, by fraud or for use In judicial proceedings. On "continuance of jnrtsd1ct1on," see ide at I 100a. See also supra note 19. intra· i 29 note 26.



ell. 1

JURISDICTION IN REM of copyrights,l55 trusts,~ or contract the concept of in rem jurisdiction much of its significance.


quacy of notice and opportunity to be beard becomes crucial when jurisdiction in rem js sought as to interests in intangibl~ owned by absent nonresidents. Situs, in such cases, in Cardozo's words, "is in truth a legal fiction," " differing with the kind of intangible involved and, quite properly, with the purpose for which situs is being determined. Thus, situs may require different determination as to questions of inheritance taxation,49 escheat (§ 49), the administration of estates, or status (infra).GO For the purpose of in rem jurisdiction, thIS problem will often arise concerning negotia48.

ble .instruments, 'shares of stock, insUrance policies or debts. Negotiable instruments are generally held to have their situs for this purpose at the place where the paper representing the obligation is located.151 This now applies to shares of Stock in view- of the nationwide adoption of the Uniform Stock Transfer Act, according to which shares are treated as embodied in the certificate.G! As to insurance policies 153 and debts M the courtsare not in agreement.

STATUS AS A "RES" (ADOPTION) The treatment of status as a res for juris'dctional purposes has largely determined the ,confiicts law of matrimonial relations and will ,-me fully discussed in that connection (§§ 71 • At this P.oint the law of adoption may ,.:Serve to exemplify the problems created by 1:his terminology.. 'The law on this topic is badly confUsed by :the promiscuous treatment of several ques:tions, namely those concerning the validity of .a decree of adoption within the adopting state . (local jurisdiction); those concerning the "TeCOgnition of foreign decrees (international .and interstate juri$diction); and finally those concerning the applicable law. In this section only the first question will be dealt with :and that only in so far as it is concerned with .-the location of the "res," leaving further .~ysis to later chapters (§§ 51, 142). . .In.most civil law countries the question of local jurisdiction is usually not a serious one, since courts ofter their "hospitality" to aliens, -at least where the country of their nationality approves of the institution of adoption as

Wherever courts for purposes of in rem jurisdiction insist on their personal jurisdiction over the owner of an intangible, as in the
51. See e. g. First Trust Co. of St. Paul T. Matheson. lSi Minn. 46S. 246 N.W. 1 (1932); Stumberg, Com· merclal Paper and the Conflict of Laws, 0 Vand. L.Bev.489 (19;)3); AnDo., 87 A.L.n. 41m.

Severnoe Securities Corp. T. London & Lancashire Ins. Co•• Ltd.. 255 N."f. 120. 123. 174 N.E. 299. 300 (1931). "The localitr selected is for some purposes, the domicile of the creditor; for others. the doml· cile or place of bUSiness of the debtor. the place. that is to say. where the nblljratlon was created or was meant to be discharged i for others. anr place where the debtor can be found . • " At the root of the selection is generaUr a common sense appraisal of the requirements of justice and convenience In partleular conditions." For a civil la\\' analysIs. see Wengler. Die Belegenbelt von Rechten Oorki): Id., La situation o(}es drolts, 4G Rev.Crlt. DIP 11m, 409 . (1957). Multiplicity of the sitlls of IntDnJrlbles Is prohablr primarily responsible for the abnndonment of the "single tax" theor)"'. First National Bank of Boston ,'. l\Iaine, 2M U.S. 312. 52 S.Ot. 174 0002): Cur~ ,'. McCanlesR, 30i U.S. Sl'ii, 5,q S.Ct. 000 (1939): State Tn."< Comm'n ,'. Aldrich. 316 U.S. 174, 02 S.Ct. 1008 (1942). The Uniform Interstate Arbl· tration of Death Tnnl'; and Interstate Compromise of Death Taxes Acts offer only partial relief. DB U.L.A. (1957) 213, 223. See Cbeatham Casebook 719ft.


Brownewell T. Columbus Clay Mfg. Co•• 100 Ohio SL 32-l. 142 N.E.2(l GIl (1957); ResL H 53, 104. But cf. Stnndard Oil Co. T. New Jersey. 341 U.S. 428, 71 S.Ct. 822 (1951), involving escheat of abandoned stock; and for the practice of Delaware courts, Hodson '". Hodson Corp•• 32 DeLCb. 70. 80 A.2d 180 (1051). See also Direction der Dlsconto-Gesellschatt T. United States Steel Corp.• 20i U.S. 22. 45 S.Ot. 20i (19!!!;): Alhuquerque Nat. Bank T. Citizens Nat. Bank. 212 F.2d 943 (Oth Clr. 1945); Crane ,'. Crane, 3;'3 Pa. 1. 95 A.2d 199 (1003); and in general Pomerance, The Situs of Stock, Ii Corn.LQ. 43 (1931): Stumben;. supra note 51; Note, 45 'Yale W. 379 (1935); Anno., 145 A.LIl. 1303. For a ease Im·olTlng extranational stock see BauerD1reund T. Frank. 200 Mise. 242. 183 N.l:.S.2d 614 (Bronx Co. 1954).
53. 1I0ndin T. )fondin. 274 App.DlT. 69. 80 N."f.S.2d 176 (1948); Cameron T. Penn Mutual Life Ins. 111 N.J.Eq. 311, 178 A. 344 (1934); Note, 31 "tale L.J. 425 (1022); supra § 23 note 20. See also Conn. )iutunl Life Ins. Co. T. )foore, 333 U.S. 541. OS S.Ct. 082 (1048" im'olving escheat of abandoned insurance funds; Chafec. Interstate Interpleader. 33 "fale LJ. OS:;, 701 (1924); Note. 41 'Yale L.J. 425 (1922). For a case involving an administrator appointed by virtue of an insurance policy for a non-resident deceased killed.ln a local airplane Clash, see In Ie Rel1lr's Estate, 63 N.lL 352, 819 P.2d 1069 (1958).

such.as Where, however, as in the United States,domiclliary law replaces that of nationality, the question becomes more complex, particularly if, as· is the case in this country, the rules governing service of process are part of the law of jurisdiction (§ 25).159 Here the vexing dichotomy of proceedings in rem 60 and in perSonam and constitutional standards of aue process create new problems. Adoption being entirely statutory,61 the court's local jurisdiction is determined in. the first place by the statute of the adopting state. These statutes, as a 'rule, confer competency upon courts of the adopter's domicile or residence and require the ~ild to be within the court's territory.fI!' ·If the chlld is a foundling or abandoned, his'ascribed domicile will coincide with that of the adoptive parent. Otherwise the domicile of the natural parents may have to be taken into account.
58. 1 Babel 6S2ff.; Id., 0 Babels Z. ·310 (932): llerle. Adoption, Das Internationale Famlllenrecht Deutschlands und Frankreichs (1900) 381ft.: RaalM! 300ff; infra § 51 note 83. For an lllu~atfon of the confilct. see tile Gennan decision 011 n Californin adoption. 3 Ebe und FrunUie 123 (1050): also Neu· haus. 9th Supp. Deutsche llechtszeltschrlft: MUlier. 3 Ehe und Femilie 174 (1950). See also the .Aus· trian decision, 'j Int.Comp.L.Q. 158 (1958) ; and generally infra § 142(3).


Buchanan and Myers. The Administration of In· tanJrlbles in Yiew of First National Bank T. Maine. 48 Hal't'.L.Re'·. 911 (1935): Andrews, Situs of In· tanjrlbles in Suits aJralnst Nonresident Claimants. 49 -rale L.J. 241 (193D); Cbafee. Interstate Interplead· er, 33 "fale L.J. 085 (1924); Simmons, Conflict of Laws and Constitutional Law in Respect to Intan' glbles, 26 Callf.L.Re\". 91 (1937); Note, 22 Co1.L.Rev. 152 (1D22). In Western Union Telegrapb Co. v. / ' Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 368 U.S. 71. 82 S.Ct. 199 (1961), the Supreme Court bas declared its wllllngnes5. in cases of original jurisdiction in suits between states, to establish an exclusive situs for escheat purposes. See also infra I 49. Actions to set aside divorce decrees or orders vacating such decrees are apparently 8tlU treated as actions In rem with Tnrylng Identlfication of the location of the marriage "res." See e. g. Martin T. Martin, 200 Tenn. 196, 292 S.W.2d 9 (1956) i Smith v. Smith, 68 Nev. 10. 226 P.2d 279 (1951).

See e. g. Independent FUm Distributors T. Cbesa· peake Industries, 250 F.2d ro1. 955 (2d Cir.195S). As to the situs of trademarks, see Amato Narodn[ PodDlk T. JUlius Kellwertb MuslkinstMlIuentenfab· rik, Hague Recbtbank Dec. 31, 1955, 4 Ned.Tijdschr. lnt.R. 428 (1957). See also infra § 48 Dote 30.

For an lllustration of the frequent confUSion be· tween cllOice of law and jurisdiction, see Rest. 5 142. "'hicb sugrcestf; a rule concerning the creation of the status of adoption by the "law" of certain states, and seems to ignore the posslblllty of a court tak· ing jurisdiction under a foreign law.

60. The "In rem" character of a finding of adoption wns held to bind tIle tax authorities. In re Radovlcll·S Estate, 48 Cal.2d 110, 3tl8 P.2d 14 (1937). See also In re Barnett's Adoption, 54 Ca1.2d 3iO, 3rJol P.2d 18. 22 (1960); 2 Armstrong. California FamUy Law (1953) 121&-1219 (Supp.1961) 436-43••

54. Cf. Doler v. Collins, 344 Mlcb. 148, 73 N.W.2d 464 (1955); Leek T. Wieand, 7 N.J.Super. 501, 71 A.2d 911 (1950); Bank of Jasper v. First Nat. BaDk, 258 U.S. 112, 42 S.Ot. 202 (1922); American Indus· trial Sales Corp. v. Alrscope, 44 Ca1.2d 393, 282 P.2d 504 (1955) (statutory localization for purpose of attachment) i Beale. Tbe Exercise of Jurisdiction in Rem to Compel Payment of a Debt, 27 Ha".L. Re'·. 107 (1913) i Comments, 30 Barv.L.Bev. 486 (1917) i 39 Harv.L.BeT. 485 (1926).

liB. See Erdbeim T. Mabee, 205 N.Y. 80•• 113 N.E.2d 433 (1~); Clark T. Wll11ard, 294 U.S. 211. 55 S.Ct. 300 (1935); Land. Trusts in the Conflict of Laws (1940); Capron, Situs of Trusts In Conflict of Laws, 93 Trusts and Estates 86S (1954); Swabenland. The Conflict of Laws in Administration of Express Trusts of Personal Property. 4u Yale L.J. 438 (1936): Comment, li5 Mich.L.Rev. 431 (1957); supra note 13. For imPOrtant dicta. see Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 23a, 246 ft•• '18 S.Ot. 1228, 1236 fl. (1038). S7. GOOdrich 1.3 i Rest. I 51, comment (b). See also infra I G7 Dote 27.

In England adoption 'vas Dot introduced until the Adoption of Cblldren Act, 16 &; 17 Geo. Y, e. 2D (1920). On English law see Jones, AdoptioDS in tbe Conflict of Laws, 5 lnt. &; CompL.Q. 207 (1956) i Kennedy. Adoption in the Conflict of Laws, 34 Can. B.Rev. 50. (1956); Inglis, Adoption, the Marshall Case and the Conflict of Laws, 85 Can.Bar Be\". 102i (1957). For a case recognizing the "equitable status of an adopted son," see In re Radovich's Estate, 48 Cnl.2d 116, 308 P.2d 14 (1957).

62. 2 Armstrong, California Family Law (1953) 1170. 1218ff.


' ...




(LOCAL) JURISDICTION AND PROPER PR(~S child's birth or domicile in a foreign countrys or state cannot affect the result since there is· no "good reason why the power of the courts· of the state should not extend to the protec. tion, care, and dispoSition of minor children. of foreign birth as well as native born." 87 Analysis of the type of jurisdiction involved is more significant in relation to natural parents who have not forfeited their natural rights. According to the Restatement,88 only courts of either of two states can "create" the "status of adoption:" the court of the child's domicile,- and the court of the adoptive parents' domicile if it has jurisdiction of the "person having legal custody of the child." . Since the first court would not require personal jurisdiction over anybody, the theory underlying its jurisdiction apparently is one of jurisdiction in rem, or quasi in rem, the res being the child's "status" either in his adoptive or in his natural family,10 or even the child himself. '71 But it is not clear why the same theory should not apply to the second court basing its jurisdiction on the adoptive parents' domicUe.'n Indeed, in some cas67.
68. 69.

Where the validity of an adoption of a child of either dead or disqualified parents is at issue, courts will uphold the adoption of a child present within its territory 63 without requiring more than the consent of the resident adoptive parents and, where the statute so provides, the consent of the child.1M The question whether an adoption decree in such cases is based on jurisdiction in personam or in rem will cause little concem, since· a disqualified parent os will be denied the right to attack the decree under either theory.66 The

''There appears to be ItS much reason for courts of a state taking jurisdiction. for purposes of adoption. tlf the person of a child found within its borders. as there Is for taking jurisdiction tor any other purpose beneficial to the chUrl where It is found within the state." Hopkins v. Gifford. 300 Ill. 363. 141 N.E. li8. 181 (1D'13). distinguished on thLq gronnd In ~oel v. OtszewNki. 300 Ill.App. 2M. 112 X.E.2d i21 (11)Sl) (Polish domicile of d~ent's adoptive child). Cases Involving the (IUeRtlon of the meaning of .\Itatutory "residence" usually involve either venue prohlems or the recognition ot foreign decrees II 51). See Anno.• liO A.f•• R. -10.1. In re Duren, 3:'>5 1[0. 1222. 200 S. W.2d 343 (lIMn (child left tor permanent stay. though not abandoned) reviews the "strict" Ilnd "lIheral" "Iew nnd prefers the latter. liee also 2 Armstrong, Call1ornin Family Law (1003) 1210; Spiro. Domicile ot lllnors without Parents. ;; Int. & Comp.L.Q. 100 (1056).

JURISDICTION IN REM § 26 . jurisdiction (§ § ZT, 65). And here as elsef thiS latter type, too, service- by publica- where, persons in privity with that party ~ ~ 0 without personal jurisdiction over the included in this estoppel.'%8 Where lack of ~u­ tlon ural parents has been held sufficient to cut risdiction does not appear on the record, hetrS nat th' rights'on·what is clearly a theory of of the adoptive parent cannot successfully off eU"'urisdi·ction.73 ThisseetnS to be the d th t the in relll l . attack the adoption on the groun a. t least where the natural parents have 111 decedent was not resident in the state as relaW a actually received reasonable no19 rnanner thiS and opportunity to be heard, and of quired by statute. tice I consentThe case law being inconclusive, it remainS urse where they have express y f th adop Ced0 -;.& Consent by a guardian ad litem '715 or doubtful whether or not the state ~ . e. .~. . ardian of an insane parent 18 may be tive parent's domicile may take lurlSdictiO theffi~nt and the consent of a parent legally although the child is domiciled elsewhere and su Cl , uired 7'% the natural parents are not subject to the depriv~ of all custody is not req '. forum's jurisdiction. In the absence of any Here as elsewhere, the moving party him- ruling of the Supreme Court, it may be hOP~ self is estopped from attacking the court's that, as in custody cases.dO the co~ will, within the framework of the statutes Cll'Cum'. . If re) ~trict complinnt"e with the notice chilrl:- \~e n . . II i red In re llerers' Estate. scribing their competency, feel free to ~­ stl!!"te I~.~h~;:: ~ ~ n05:n: :o;toJ'@y v. Shlline and approve adoptions whenever th1S 1D, or· ·-';\ C' '010 131 ",0 tt.2d 1051 (1tAA;); Anno., ,3 maker.· .• roper in regard for the welfare of the ill A.L.R. tOii. seems P . . ' 1 t!le child (§§ 86 if.).1l Within this pnnClp e .. ::itenrns v. Allen. 183 lIfU\8. -1M. \1i ~. tura1 parents' rights will have to be safe-73. ~~\- In J'@ lIeyers' Estate. ~lIpm note I .. : 3-lD ( . SII ra note jCl' infm § 1)1 notes in the most appropriate m~er StoJ'@Y \'. Shtlmllk~r'~e:ts' claim ~r "tolntion of due :m'f. TIU;nl ,vlthout arfectlng the \'n- without the license and burden of totally mPl'OcesS ,~ as to third parties. EslIdlty ot the In rem deeree ~d 456 lOS P.2d 842 tate of Smith. 86 CaLAPP '152. -0 A. 1948)' Woodward's Appeal. S1 Conn. ' ~5S (19osl' .. Armst\"On~. California Fnmlly Law (1003) 121Srr. - Concerning lllegttimate c:blldren. see




64. Without statutot'Y provision. the consent ot the adoption agency Is noC- required. 1CcDonaid v. Holy Family Adoption Service...3 Cal.2d -H7. 27-1 P.2d 860 (105-1); 2 Armstrong. CaHrornln. Family rAW (10:1:1). Snpp.l0S1. p. -1M: Anno.• 2.. A.L.R.2cl 1121. 113.'l. ~or is ronsent required of the putath'e father who has married the mother. In re Simaner's Petition, 16 Ill.2d 48, 141 N.E.2d 410 (105i). 65. For n definition see e. g. Callf.Clv.Code • 224 (judicial deprivation of custody. desertion without pro,'islon (or identification. rellnquifolhment for ndoption). ::iee also 2 Armstrong. California Family Law (1053) 1100ff.. Supp.1001, 423Jf.; and (or a general analysis, Annos .• 35 A.L.R.2d 662; 52 A.L.R. 2d 406. .
66. Adoption of Lagumis, 186 lId. 07. 46 A.2d 189 flD461: In re Davies' Adoption. 35S Pa. 5ro. 40 A.2d :!!i2 (1046); Thomson v. Harrell. 2i1 S.W.2d i24 (Tex.Clv.App.1954). Ct.. Lee v. Purvlo, 285 S.W.2d 405 (Tex.Clv.App.195:i). But whether or not the parent \Vas dlsqualifted. may of course always be subsequently litigated (S.tern v. Sheffield. 2 Ill.App. 2d 311. 120 N.E.2d 62 (1954): Emmons v. Dlnelli. ::a;s Ind. 249. 133 N.E.2d 00 (l9'~)). although an udoption may be approved e\'en where tlte finding of abandonment was erroneotls (Rlzo v. Burruel. 23 Ariz. 131, 202 P. 234 (1021); Parsons v. Parsons, 101 Wis. i6, 77 N.W. 147 (1898»).

Rlzo v. Burruel. 23 Ariz. 137, 202' P; 2M (1021).
Rest. § 10.12-

.umo.• 51 A.L.R.2d -lM.
A. prior adoptive parent has the same riltbts as; natural purent. Adoption of Bascom, 126 l[ont. 1 , 248 P.2d 223 (1052). Fr tello 204 O~ 316. 2S2 P.2d 667 74. Whetmore v. a .~ P.2d 1022 (OkL1056): (1055) • In re TlndeU. -.vEl. . 9d 60 Rhod~ \' Sbirley. 2M Ind. 581. 129 N.E.- • (1955)' re Adoption of Cnnnon. 243 Iowa. 828. 53 ~ W C)d. 87T (1052). See also In re Oddo's Adoption. 359 50 N.E.2d 612 (Surr.l946); lIoseley v. Deaus. 222 731, 24 S.E.2d 630 (1943); Anno., 24 A.I ••lt.2d 1121.

bb rdt v Warren• 399 IlL 196. 'it N.E. 18. See e. g. Ge a . .108 lIlss 'i26. 45 .ld 187 (1048): Welch v. Welch. '. if • 050) Attaclcs b\" the adoptee bimSe So.2d 353 (1 • be permltted. Cf.· Tnlntor. supra may ~~ m:~);t See also In re Leiehtenberg'S Esnote ~ • a - :ld 336. 125 N.E.2d 2'ii (1055). nff'd tate. a Il1.AP~ N.E.2d .~ (1n=~· 2 Armstrong,
" Ill.2d 545. 131

Uesl(tence without domicile may be slIlIlclent under the statute even in the nbsence of personal jurisdiction over the natural parents. Hopkinlr v. Gifford. 30D Ill. 363. 141 N.E. 178 (1923).

California FnmUy Law (1953) 1199. 12:.JQ1f.


'to'~' •

189 Tenn. 41. 82 S.W.2d 541 79. James v. Williams•


E. g. Estate of Smith. 86 Cal.App.2d 456. 468. 100 P.2d 8-12. 540 (1948): Talntor. Adoption in the Contlict of Laws, 15 U.Plttsb.L.Rev. 222. 230 (1954).



iSs Mise.

See also In re- Barnett's Adoption, supra note 60. 71. ct. Rossell. C. J., concurring In Portman v. Mobley, 158 Go. 269. 123 S.E. 695. 691 (1924).
72. Authority for the Restatement postulate ot per.\Ional jurisdiction o,'er the custodian is scarce. nnd can usually be rationalized on an alternative ground. See e. g. Wathen v. t;gaSt. iO U.S.App.D.O. 162. 14.'l F.2d 160, 161 (1944) (denial ot Jurisdiction. though pnrportedly based on this rule. decreed not· withstanding the natural lather's consent and th& appolnted gtIal'dlan's "answer to snmmons," apparently in view of simultaneous custody proceedIngs in sister state): Foster v. Waterman, 124 Mass. 502 (1818) (Interpretation ot sister state statute): Eckstein Adoption. -l D. & C.2d 651, 661 (Orpb.Ct. Pa-l0M) . ("international considerations"): KlIDge~ Adoption. 5 D. & O.2d 161 (Orph.Ct.Pa.19G6). (absent.


Eckstein Adoption. supra note i2.1. at ::- In-:~ d rule Q88umed by tbe court. e. ::a:mt1 of the domleUe or residence of the cb11d. hardly represents prevaUlng law, I 86.

75. Hopkins v. GIlford. 309 m 363. 141 N.E. ~ (199..3) (alternative gronnd of estoppell. ~ lleodive v Third Judicial District Court. .0 Nev. 51, 253 P.2d 884 (1053) (Intrastate venue In appointIng court).

t cases follow this principle. See 81. Nearly all recen 3 11~ 5U 121 N.E.2d 781 f) lni 587 120 N.E.2d e. It- people v. Barger. ~ (1054)' Rbodes. v. Sbirley. 2M v.... ua I' 946 )fInn• , • S t ex rei ~elsOn ey, 60 (1955). W~de 786 (1956). See ~e\Vbold. Jurlsdl~

76. People v.


:~~a~d (luEl.I ~~tsperO~a!sdO~~:tb:~g~·L~. S~l U Rev 605 tlr pre-

3 m.2d 511, 121 N.E.2d 181


DC ~3~ "14 F 9d 844 (1954) (full faith and credit t; ,;, Florida d~ depriving the father of custody) :
In re Bnrton's Adoption. 141 CaLAPP.2d 125. 3~ 2d ISS (1956); StJt)ra notes 631f.; Comment, 32 J.:. U.L.Rev. aiD (1951).


g. In re Adoption of a lUnor. D4 U.S..A.pp.


• b tiS" doctrine of the kind apparen "ciean an cbildren's custody It 88). should be valllng as to the exercise of the court's discretion. n • recognized 'd c McCoy [:to! St.John's L.Rev. 202 Cf. In re A op....on roved adoPtion (1008»), where the Florida conrt app In dis-lOrd moved from lIassachusetts &"'0of a chUd re t I'fturt of that state [EUls v. lIcCo,. of a decree 0 a...., 5) 332 Mass. 25-1.124 N.E.2d 2661.1955.




JURISDICTION IN PERSONAM that the rule is undesirable wiD be dembelow (§ 30). No wonder then, the courts have recognized quickly mulexceptions which may well fore~dow an early reformulation of the alleged


adequate rules of personal or in rem jurisdiction.a

This would presuppose general recoltDltion of an in rem concept modified by the fair notice requirements of the Mullane doctrine, § 20 note 35. AD alternative would be general adoption of aD 10 personam theory implemented by Interstate proceedlogs such as those proTlded by the UDiform Reclp-

l'Oe81 Enforcement of Support Act, 1nfra § 82. Bow· ever, bere as 10 the law of ehlJdreD's custody (I 88). eztralltiglODS proeeedlDgs -with tbeir empbasis on . ex officio action and Interstate cooperation would offer a preferable solution. See also Intra § 51 note 85. ConcerDing the possibly retrogressive implications of May v. Anderson, 345 U.S; -528, 73 S.Ot. 840 (1953), infra § S; note 45, see Hazard, May T. Anderson: Preamble to Family Law Chaos. 45 Va. L.Rev. 310. S9i-400 (1959).

to choose their own court ( § 41). But where

the defendant gives his consent after accrual of the cause of action, the court clearly acquires jurisdiction,9 as p~bably does the arbitrator.1o

Since consent stipulations can easily be . ~ere are four typical. situations, to be abused by parties with a stronger bargaining with more fully below, in which a state and most states will, claim personal ~'jurisdiction without personal service within state: (a) Where the defendant has ex~y consented to the jurisdiction prior or to the service of process, and precluded himself from attacking the jurisdiction of the court (general appearance .:meing equivalent to consent); (b) where ju:-;risdiction is held to "continue" from a prior ~g; (c) where a state has constitu·"!tionally extended its concept of "proper" per$Onal service to permit "substituted" service · .rother than that on the defendant from hand .hand; and (d) where (partly on a theory "implied consent") even "constructive ·....service" (service by publication, upon agents) -tmmbined with deposit in the mail, or per·«mal service outside the state, is permitted. ·.:since this last exception is usually contingent ;upon contacts with the parties or the case, .dt promises to furnish the tool by which · American courts and legislatures may ultimately replace the dogma of a "personal ju· Tisdiction" based on the exercise of a ficti-:tious "power", by a contact-determined law · ~ competency or interstate venue (§ 25). 'The four exceptions will now be briefly dis. 'CUSSed. (2) Exception: Consent power, particularly in contracts of adhesion.ll protective legislation has been passed by several states, and courts have been inclined to interpret such stipulations restrictively. A foreign law deeming the defendant to have agreed to less than personal service, though applicable to the merits of the case, has been held not to convey consent jurisdiction on the foreign court12 Concerning the plaintiff, too, consent may be substituted for proper service of process. "There is nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment to prevent a state from adopting a procedure by which a judgment in personam may be rendered in a cross-action against a plaintifi in its courts, upon service of process or of appropriate pleading upon his attorney of record" 13

service at least as .to nonresidents owning property within the state; a and this practice a. PERsONAL SERVICE REQUIRED did not generally require the attachment of such property as the SUpreme Court did in (1) The Rule thePennoyer case (§ 29). Even in the ab§ 27. The accepted principle of personal sence of intrastate property, some early jurisdiction over individuals is based upon courts felt free, at least where dealing with the requirement and the sufficiency of per- citizen plaintiffs, to assume jurisdiction withsonal service within the state of the forum. 1 out personal service. 6 Every citizen was, on Numerous exceptions, to be dealt with pres- principle, "entitled to the process of the ently, and particularly recent statutory de- courts "to enforce his rights of action against velopments (§ 28), raise the question wheth- non-reside~~."" A general requirement of er this statement of the rule is still accurate, intrastate personal service allegedly essential and, if it is not, whether it does not unduly to personal jurisdiction thus must be said hamper the growth of the law. This ques- to lack even historical justification. That' tion seems the more appropriate as the al- its alleged rationale of "physical power" is leged rule can, in its present generality, prob- illusory, has been suggested above (§ 25.2). ably not be traced back beyond the 1877 110 U.S. 151 (lSSl). conceded that "tbe courts of decision in Pennoyer v. Neff. 2 This assumpthl' SUIte mil1'ht perhaps feel bound to give effect tion cannot be conclusively proved. But, it to [constructive] 8e"ice as directed by its statutes" in an In personam suit. Equity, at least under seems, the burden of proof is with those asstatutor~ rules. has always considered service by serting the rule to be of ancient origin and publication sufficient. See e. g. 1 Laws of New therefore beyond judicial scrutiny and even York (2(1 ell. 180i) ch. 123, par. VIII; Comm'rs Reports, New York Code Ol'\'.l)roc. (1840) lSii. statutory change. 3 For, this much seems certain: Prior to Pennoyer, a "long estab- 5. See the authorities discussed by Justice Bunt, supra note 2, at 738ff. Many of the statutes referred lished practice under the statutes of the to are still In effect and apparently regaining vitalIty In the same measure as the Pennoyer doctrine States"· dispensed with intrastate personal L JNDIVIDUALS
I. Bess v. Pa"'loski, 2i4 U.S. 352. 4i S.Ot. 632 (1927) i


Adam '\'. SaenJrer. 303 U.S. 59.58 S.OL 454 (193S): Petrowsld '\'. Hawkeye-Security Ins. Co.• 350 U.S . 4ro. 76 S.OL 490 (1050); ResL, Judgments (lOt:.!, § IS; Rest. I 81.

10. Stern. Tbe Conflict or LawF:in Commercial ArId. tratlon. Ii Law « ConLProb. 56i, {'ji2 (l952); Hell. man, Arhltratioll AJm!eJl1ents nnd tlle Conttict of Laws, 38 Ynle L.J. 81. Cl929): Popkin and Jacobson, Jurisdiction over the Non-Resident In Arbitration Proceedings, Ii N.Y.U.L.Q.Re'\'. 52; (IMO); Lorenzen, Commercinl Arbitration-International nud In. terstate Aspects. 43 Yale L.J. il0 (1934); infra § oj!!.

Pennoyer '\'. Neff, 00 1:'.S. 714 (1877). 2. Pennoyer '\'. Neff, 95 U.S. i14 (187i). See Cleary, Tbe Length of tbe Long Arm. 9 J.Pub.L. 293 0900). S. 1 Beale, Conflict of Laws (1935) 27:;. 339ff. Supra § 25 note 3i. 4. Pennoyer '\'. Neff, supra note 2, at 78G, 73i, Bunt, J., dissenting. As late as seven years after the Pennoyer case, Justice Gray. 10 Hart v. Sansom.

is losing force. Ebrenzweig and lillis, Personal Sen'ice outside the State: l'ennoyer '\'. Neff in Oalifornia, 41 CaUlL.Be,\,. 383 (1953); Ehrenzwelg, The Transient Rule of Personal Jurisdiction: The "PO\Ver" Myth and Forum Conveniens, 6ii "Yale L.J. 289 (1950) i infra § 28. For an early statute, see e. g. Edsall, Journal of the Courts of Common Right and Ohancery of East New Jeper 1683-1702 (193i)
41. "

In contrast to jurisdiction over the subject · ~tter,8 personal jurisdiction may be acquir-Ed by consent expressed either prior or subse·~ent to the accrual of the cause of action. In the former case courts have occasionally "--expressed reluctance to permit parties thus
.343, 9; A.2d 782 (1953).
I 25 note 8. See e. g. Schleifer v. Exley. 3;4 Pa.

Ehrenzwelg, Adhesion Contracts in the Confiict of Laws, 58 Col.L.Rel". 1072 (1953). &>e e. g. Green Mountain College '\'. Lenne, 120 Vt. 332, 130 A.2d 822 (1958); lDfra § 1i2.

12. Pope l". Beckscber. 260 N.1:. 114, 194 N.E. 53 (1934). On past and current English practice, see J. A. O. Smlth. PersonnJ Jurisdiction. 2 Int.Comp. L.Q. 510 (1908). 13. Adam l". Saenger. 303 U.S. 59, 6i, 58 S.Ot. 454. 458 (1088). See Korff v. G and G Corp., 21 N.J. 558. 122 A.2d 889 (1956); Rest. § 83. For a case extendIng this doctrine beyond croBS-actlons, see Brown T. Hugbes. 136 F.Supp. 5ti (M.D.Pa.1955). See Note, 69 Ban".L.Re'\'. 1515 (191S6).


See e. g. Buttenvorth '\'.

XJnser. 14 TeL 493 (1855)•.

7. Id. at 500.


' ...





§ 27



General appearance is generally held equiv- . :J.lent to e.--<press consent.lf Special appearance, although by its very terms made for the Illnited purpose of contesting jurisdiction, may have the effect of general appearance. Thus, a statute or court decision may constitutionally make special appearance equivatent to general appearance.11S And appear:mce solely for the purpose of defending an interest in attached property may be held to tum jurisdiction quasi in rem (§ 29) into perional jurisdiction. lo Appearance to contest
14. Rest., Judgment& (1942) § 19. .As to n.ceeptance of jq!r\'ice of process outside the state. see Erickson \". Robison, :!S2 ..\pp.Dlv. i:H. 125 ~.r.8.:!d i3G (195.1): Uetlt.•.rudglllenttl § 18. l .. uument c: U~t. lSI. L'OIDmenC c: Rest.Second. Tent.Drnft ~o... (lOOj) § 11ib. As to elYect of wlthdrnwnl of Ilppearance. Wilson \'. Burry. 119 CnI.App.:!d '.21. :!l:i9 P.:!d !lfIt (100.1). As to mtUicntton CIt pro~s h)" nppeRrnnl"e. ~ r..ord v. Hubert. 12 I1l.:!d ~I. 14li N.E'!!d ii t1!15i). :iee ulso R. B. Genernl TnlckinJ: Cu. " .•\lItO PnrtK &: Service. 3 Wls.2d !II. Si ~.W'!!d AA3 (lD5i): FASt (:Ilrollnn Lumber Co, ". W~t, :!4j ~.C. UOO. 102 :i.E.:!d 2-:18 (1mi8) •.

foreclosure in mechanic's Hen proceedings has been treated similarly.l'7 Following the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,ls some states have enacted legislation securing the defendant's right to attack jurisdiction without consenting to it.19 Whether a defendant is bound by the appearance on his behalf by an attorney not authorized to act for him, may depend on whether the defendant is a resident of the forum state.:o The general decline of jurisdictional rigidity may explain a decision which bases personal jurisdiction upon mere failure to assert absence of jurisdiction subsequent to the judgment.21 (3) Exception: "Retained" and "Continuing" Jurisdiction Once juriSdiction over a person or thing is acquired by proper service, it will continue throughout the same litigation. JusticeHolmes has praised this rule as "one of the decencies of civilization that no one would dispute. " 2: But its expansion to cover I'es_
.\ Proposed Solution. 1D Ford.LRev. 125 (1950):

sential concomitants" 23 of the original suit has created difficult questions of delimitation. Retained jurisdiction' has been denied in interpleader proceedings as "plainly collateral" to the original action,!" and full faith and credit was refused to a revivor judgment which was based on constructive service and "retained" jurisdiction.:1S On the other hand, a suit by the joint tort-feasor for contribution was in effect held to be an essential concomitant of the original action.28 The problems most frequently arising under this heading concern continuing jurisdiction in actions for support and child custody. Since judgments in such cases usually do not purport to be final,:'7 "retention" of jurisdiction without renewed notice :8 should be valid only for a limited period rather than until the voluntary relinquishment of such jurisdiction by the court.!9 Indeed, this


York f ..lfe Ins. Co. ,'. Dunlevy, ~41 U.S. 518. 36 fi13 (1916).

York' \". TexllS. 137 U.S. 15, 11 S.Ct. 9 (1800); Western Ute Indemnity Co. ". Rupp, :!.15 U.~. :.'61, :15 S.Ct. :r; (1914): Koufmon \". Wooters. 1:18 U.S. :!85. 11 S.Ct. 298 (1891): BUl1rer v. Burger. 156 Tex. rJ84. :!98 S.W.2d 119 (t95n: nest., Judl:J1lenrs § 20, c:omment e; Rest. § 82. comment n. cr. Blair. Con~tructl ve

23. Xew fork Life Ins. Co. v. Dunlevy, supro note 22, at 522.

38 llinn.L.Re\'. 616 (1954).

24, Ibid, See infra § 2D note 28.
25. Welch \". Downs, 1 Ill...\pp.2d 424, 118 51 (1954).

seems to be the law, even where the prior proceedings gave notice to the defendant of a possibly continuing jurisdiction, at least insofar as the subsequent proceedings undertake "substantially to affect" the defendant's rights in a manner not adjudicated in the prior proceedings.30 This problem becomes particularly important where the concepts of finality and comity (often obscure) induce the court of a sister state to refuse sole or concurring jurisdiction because of a continuing jurisdiction elsewhere.31 A general appearance is said to confer jurisdiction "not only with respect to claims stated in the original complaint but also as to claims by the same plaintiff stated in amendments if the law of the state where the action is brought so provides. . . . "33 But such case law as there existed to support this proposition,D has created serious problems where an original in rem complaint was served constructively (e. g. in a divorce case) and a later amendment introduced a new personal cause of action (e. g. a support claim), relying upon appearance in the absence of personal service.3-& The more recent
Cohn v. Cobn, 151 Flo. 547, 10 So.2d iT (1942): Commonwenltb ex rei. l(llne v. llllne. 149 PI1. Super. 100. :!6 A.2d 207 (1942), mOd. 150 Pa.Super. r,oo. :!9 A..2d 228 (1042): Boone \'. Wachovta Bank 05; Trust Co.. 82 U.S.App.D.C. 317, 163 F.2d 809 (1947). 30. Griffin v. Griffin, 327 U.S. 220. 229. 66 S.Ct. 556 (1946). Cf. Ebrenzweig. Interstote Recognition of Support Duties, 42 Callf. L Rev. 382 (1954); Comment, 41 Callf.L.Rev. 692 (1953). But see Rest. Second. Tent.Draft ~o. 4 (1957) 62; nnd cases discu&&ed Cheatham Casebook 115!.
As to cblldren's custody, see Infra § 86. See also AninliCbam v. A.llingham, 141 Colo. 34$, 348

Generlli Appenrances nod Due Pn>ceSlf. :!3 1ll.L.Rev. 110 (10'~): ~ote. :"H IlLL.ne\'. 432 (931) : Hearon, ~onresident Defendnnts Ilnd the ~pechll A.ppeanmce In Texas. 32 Tex.L.Rev. rs (10;;:1). Assertion of loek of jurisdiction by un Ilmicus curiae mny offer 0 way ont to tbe defendnnt. See ~ote. 31 Tex.L.nev. 336 (1953). Contrn Burger v. Burger. Huprn. Some doubt lIlay exIst I1S to wbether York v. TexllS, Ifupra, ilf l'Itlll the law in the light of current fnirness tests (I 33). See ~ote, 5 Utah L.Rev. 406(1957). But see Burger v. Burger, supra. On Commonwealth law, see Note, 2 Sydney LRev. 580 (1958).
16. Rest., Judgments (1942) § 40. Tbls seems to be the' rule under the Judlclnl Code. Anderson \'. BenHon. 117 F.Supp•. i65. ;;0 (D.C.Neb.l0lSa), opp. dism. 215 F.:!d i52 (8th Clr. 1054): Campbell v. lIurdock, 00 F.Supp. 297 (D.C.Obio 1950); Blume. Actions Quasi in Rem under § 1655, Title 28, U. S. C., 50 lllcb.L.Rev. I, 22 (lmm. But see e. g. Simmons \". Cowper, 06 So.2d 646 (La.195i): lIcQuillen v. ~o­ tional Cub Register Co.. 112 F.2d 817 (4th Clr. 1940); Cheshire Not'l Bani, v. Jayne, 224 Mass. 14, 112 N.E. 300 (1916); Churchill v. Bigelow. 333 llass. 196. 129- N.E.2d 903 (1055). See also R. R. Waldron &. Sons Co. v. Venezia, 31 N.J. 161. 153 A.2d 169 (1959): Frumer nod Graziano. Jurisdictional Dilemma of the ~onresident Defendant in New York-

17. See Campbell v. lIunlock. 00 F.Supp. 297 (W.O. Ohio 105m. But !See Note. ;;1 Col.L.Rev. 242 (lOO1). :-;ee also 8tnte ex reI. Weber \'. Register. 67 So.2d
tJl9· (Fln.1953).

Fed.Rules of CiT.Proc., Rule 12. See Hart IlDdWechsler, Tbe Federal Courts and the Federal. ~ystem (1953) ioo II.

19. For common In\v to the samp effect. see e. g. Vanover v. Vnoover. 17 Wyo. r.a. 307 P.2d 111 (1051); llock v. Stricklin, 315 P.2d 247 (Ok1.1957). See nlso Zorbell v. Bank of Americn Nat. Trust &.. Say. Ass'n, 52 Wnsb.2d 549, 327 P.2d 436 (1958).
20. Compare Brown T, ~Ichols. 42 ~,y, 26 (18iO), ,oUA Vilas v. Plattsburgh, i lI.R.R., &; lLR. Co.• 123 ~.Y. 440. ~5 ~.E. 041 (1890): lIcKny v. Stillmno, 218 App.Dh'. 662, 102 N.Y.S.2d 618 (1951). Cf. Rest. § 82, comment e: Infro § ;;1 note 26.
21. RevonR Renlty Corp. v. Wnssermnn, 4 A..D.2d 444, 166 N.Y.S.2d 960 (1057), IlPp. dlsm. 5 N.Y.2d 081, 183 NJ.S.2d 293, 156 N.E.2d 816 (1959). 22. Holmes. J., In llichignn Trust Co. v. Ferry, !!2& U.S. :H6, 353, 33 S.Ct. 500, 552 (1913). As to re-

26. Ohlqulst \". Xordstrom. 143 llisc. 502, 251 ~.Y. S. ill (1932), atf'd without op., ~38 App.Dh'. i66. 261 X.Y.S. 1039 (1003), ~62 ~.Y. 696, 188 X.E. 125 (1933). In general see Goodrich 191; Wade. Joint Tortfeasors nnd the Conlilct of Laws. 6 Vand.L.ReT. 464, 468 (1953); C. A. J. 8mith, supra § :!5 note 42, at 538. 27. But f!f. Yarborough v. Yorborough, 200 U.S. 202. 54 S.Ct. 181 (1933): intra I 84-

tnined jurisdiction in rem. see Rorick v. Devon' Syndicate, Ltd., 307 U.S. 299, 59 S.et. 877 (1939): Notes, 25 Corn.L.Q. 448 (1U40}: 13 So.Cnllf.L.Rev. 361 (1940). Retnined jurisdiction to rem cannot beconverted into a Jurisdiction to personam. ~ew

28. See e. g. Richardson v. Rlchordson, 265 S.W.2d 651 ITex.Clv.App.l954); Benson v. Benson. 291 S. W. 2d 27 (Ky.l956). Actual notice in the originRl p~ eeedings Is required. Lewis v. Lewis, 49 CRl.2d 389, 317 P.2d 081. 992 (1951). See also Atwood v. Atwood. 253 Minn. 185, 91 N.W.2d i28 (1058); Zelek v. Brosseau, 47 N.J. Super. 321, 136 A.2d 416 (105n, ntrd 26 N.J, 501, 141 A.2d 11. (1958). 29. But see Rest. § 106: "If~ in. an action. a. court obtains Jurlsdlction over a thin~ that jurlsdlctlon t'Ontlnues throughout 1111 subsequent proceedings . wblch arise oot of the original cause of action until the court voluntarily surrenders Jurisdiction overIt." Rest. I 76: "If' a court obtains JUrisdiction Over a party to an action, that jurisdiction. continues throughout all subsequent proceedings which arise out of the original cause of action." See also

P.2d 259, 264 (1959), quoting this treatise.

Rest. § 82, comment d.

See also supra § 23 note

33. See' e.g. lIendozn v. llendoza, ii' N.Y.S.2d 169 (~.Y.Co.I94i), ntrd 273 App.Dlv. SiT, iT N.Y.S.2d 264 (1948), app.dlsm. 291 N.Y. 950, 80 N.E.2d 347 (1948) ~ ond In general N.Y.JucLCouncll, 16th Ann. ReP. 191 (1950).
34. See Fromer; Jurisdiction and LImited Appearance
In. New York: Dilemmn of, tile Nonresident Defend· ant, 18 Fonlb.L.Rev. 73 (1949).




JURISDICfION IN PERSONAM -96) was held unconstitutional because it to impose "on the plaiDtift' himself or the official receiving service or some 1Other, the duty of communication by mail or 40therwise with the defendant. "'.the Court .. tWaS not satisfied with the fact that in that a:ase the defendant had actually been noti1led.1 Whether the statute must provide for ~ registered return receipt 3 or whether mail:ing to the last-lmown address is suffiCient," lis not clear. Moreover, courts will be inclined - tto look at the process prescribed by the stat. ·cute or chosen in the particular case, to ascertain whether a reasonable opportunity to defend was actually given to the defendant. 'Thus, a six-day period provided for appearuce in a New York summons was held in-sufficient to sustain a default judgment .against a Minnesota corporation, as falling below the absolutely required minimum standard.Ii Whether this standard would ap. ;ply generally to defendants residing in enemy ~tory is still doubtful. 6 TIler~ is no doubt regarding the constitutionality of personal service outside the' state .by mail or otherwise in those cases in which .constructive service by publication or by servlee upon agents has Deen upheld for purposes
substitute that is most likely to reach the defendant is tbe least that ous:ht to be required If substantial justice Is to be done. It
2. Wuchter t'. Pizzutti. 276 U.S. 13. 48 S.Ct. 25D (l928). This rule bas been applied even to the statute of a foreign country. Boidn T. Talcott, 102 F.Supp. 979 (N.D.Obio 1001).


'view $) seems preferable, therefore, according either unconditionally or if he cannot be to which "the jurisdiction • . . continues found;43 ·be effected by "substituted" service, although the complaint is amended," only as by leaving .thesummons with a member "where the effect of the amendment is not to of his family,"· or at his dwelling house." (5) Exception: Constructiv:e Service add or substitute a c1i1ferent cause of action from that stated in the complaint." 3G §28. Constructive service is usually effected by publication in newspapers with or (4) Exception: Substituted Service without deposit of the summons in the mall, Although the traditional English practice or by service on an agent appointed by the favors service by private persons,3'1 both the defendant either actually or by operation of Federal Rules and the majority of state laws law. While for this type of service, too, prescribe service by an officer.sa Miera lo~g courts have occasionally used the term "sub'history of rigidity,39 a trend to greater m- stituted service," it seems preferable to reformality and efficiency has been apparent serve this term for those techniques resorted for some time. Recent statutes provide for to in lieu of personal service within the state, -service by mall at least as an alternative which have been dealt with in the preceding method,"o and a wider use of this most effec- section. tive means of communication, generally Since constructive service often offers fewadopted in other countries,41 has been re- er safeguards of actual notification than perp~'\tedly suggested.a In most jurisdictions sonal or substituted service, it is held proppersonal service upon the defen~t may, er only in specified cases of particularly .35. See e.s:. Chapman l". Chapman. 2S4 App.Dit'. 504. significant contacts between the state and 132 N.1:.2d 70i (1954). But cr. Ev('ritt t'. E"eritt, the cause of action or the defendant. In 4 X.Y.2(1 13. lil N.1:.S.2d 880, 148 N.E.2d 891 (lOOSI. where n $350,000 libel suit wnt:: efTecth'cb' added. addition, whatever attempts can be made to without personnl sen·ice. to n $40.000 contr~ suit secure actual notification are jealously inIn whlcb nn nppe.'\rance had been entered. For sisted upon by the courts in their solicitude criticism see Note. 44 Corn.L.Q. 240 (1959). for the defendant. 36. nest.. JudlnlJents (1942) § 6. comment {:. See also Rest.Second. Tent.Draft No. 4 (105i) 03. Thus, the U. S. Supreme Court in the much37. lIl1lnr, Ch·n Procedure of tbe Trial Court in cited case of McDonald v. Mabee, struck down Historical llerspectlve (19Ga) &ia personal judgment against an absent domi38. Comments. 3i Cnllf.L.Re\·. 80 (1940) i 26 Iown ciliary (p. 94), which was .based on conL.Ret'. 90 (1940). structive service by mere newspaper publica39. Sunderland. Tbe Problem of Jurisdiction. 4 Tex. tion.1 And a nonresident motorist statute
L.Ret'. 42D, 444 U926). 40. See. e. g.• Ohio ReT'.Code (Baldwin 1938) § 2703.23. Cf. Durfee '\". Durfee. 293 Mass. 472, 200 N.E. 395 (1f136): Taplin T. Atwater. 29; Mass. 802, 8 N.E.2d 786 (1937); In re Fletcher's Guardianship, It). Neb. 196. 59 N.W.2d 859 (1953); Idzlk l". First German Sport Club Pboenix. 892 Pa. 105. 140 A.2d 106 (1958): supra § 26 note 36.

'of jurisdiction in rem .( § .26), q~asi-in-rem . (§ 29), or in personam (infra) .'.. Correspondingly, where service ·outside the state has been approved by the U. S. Supreme Court (infra) , it is likely that service by publication would be equally approved. There exist indications, 'however, that a statute providing for personal service outside the state~ because of its greater guaranty of fair notice, may be constitutional even in those personal actions in which service by publication is prohibited by the Pennoyer rule (§27). 8 ; It is true that under the language of Milliken v. Meyer (to be discussed presently) there would be little hope for the constitutionality of a statute generally permitting out-of-state service. For, at the time of such service, the defendant is neither subject to the authority of the state as a citizen, nor does he enjoy the privileges and .protection stressed in the Milliken case. Nevertheless, out-of-state personal service on a former resident has been upheld under a statutory authority which, though in effect for more than a century, had not been exercised by the courts.s
7. Rest., Judgments (1942) §
jeet to forum law.
~. comment c: f 2:3. comment c. The mode of seM'ice has heen held s111o· HeAAel l". He8S(>I, G Mil'C.2d 861. 164 N.1:.S.2d G19 (lOOn (tleM'ice .In Geo~ill on Sundar void even if permissible under New York law).

German Code Civ.Pr. § 198: Austrian Code Cit'. Proe. • 8S; and In general. Sbarte1 and '\'\"011r. CIl"1l Justice In Germanr. 42 Hlch.L.ReT'. 863, 86; (1944). See also Cuenca. La eitaeiCln en el proceso eiT'll, 8 Rev.Fac.Der. Clencias Soc1aJes 767 (19!i7).

42. N.1:.Jud.Councll. Fourth Ann.Rep. (1942) 327, 828. See also Mullane l". Central Hanover Bank &: Trust Co., 339 U.S. 806, 70 S.Ot. 652 (1950) i suprn I 26 notes 31, 35, .a6.

Mlllnr, op.cit. supra note 3i, at 90. -44. See Moore T. Kasishke, 189 Okl. 830, 117 P.2d 113 (l9al): Note. 81 Micb.L.Ret'. 2Sl (1982) i 100 A..L.R. 1502. But see Sternbeck l". Buck, 148 Cal. App.2d 829, 807 P.2d 970 (195;). distinguishing YaH '\". Jones. 200 Cal. 2Ul, 2Si P. 99 (1~). Cf. Fed.Rule CiT.ProC. 4(d) (1); Bart and ~ecllsler, The Federal Courts and the Federal System (10;>3) 944«.; 1 Witk1D, Callfornia procedure (1954. Supp. 1959) SlOt. 45. See e. g. Buchanan '\". Treadwell. 213 Ga. 15~3. 9i S.E.2d 705 (1957): Note§. 27 Neb.L.Rev. 4~ (l948) ; 22 Wash.L.Ret'. 230 (1947); Anno., 1.2 A..L.R.521. I. McDonald v. Mabee, 243 U.s. 90, 92, 8; S.Ct. 343. S44 (191i): "To dispense with p~rsona1 servIce the


See Freedman T. l'oirier. 134 Misc. 253. 236 N.l:. S. 96 (1929). atr'd 22i App.Dh·. 820, 287 1'\.1:.S. 618 (19'l9J. But cf. Bartler l". Vitiello, 113 Conn. 74, 154 .A. 255 (1931). For n case 1DvolTlng refusal to accept a registered letter of notice, see Wax T. Van 'Marter, 124 Pa. Super. 573, 189 A. 53; (193;). See also Anno., 125 A.L.R. 45;, 471.

r .J


4. See Scbll1Dg T. Odlebak., 177 MlllJl. 90, 224 N.W. 694 (1929) i Note, 18 Callf.L.Ret'. 195 (1930). G. Robins l". Robert Lawrence Electronics Corp., 84 N.Y.S.2d 99 (N.1:.Clty Ct,1948), relying on Roller '\". Bollr, 176 U.S. 398, 20 S.Ct. 410 (1899). See also BOban ". M. Schwarz, Inc., 189 N.l:.S.2d 14 (N.Y. Co. 1955). t6. Anno., lSi A.L.n. 1865.

Myrick l". Superior Court. 2S0 P.2d 3-iS (Cn1.Dist. Ct.19::i3), atr'd 41 Cal.2d GID. 201 r.2d 2;;~ (1~31. consldert: this distinction of ""Itlll Importanc(''' ill relation to Calif.Code CiT.Proc. I 41i. Stnts.lroo;. ell. lGi4. § 1, provides 1D part that "where juri~. diction is acquired over a person who is outsid(> of this State • • • 1D accordance with Sectiont: 412 and 418 (infra note 9) the court· shall b8"~ the power to render a persoDal judgment against such person on13' If be was personnlly served wltb a copy of the summons and complaint, and wa~ a resident of tbis State (a) at the time of the com· mencement of the action, or (b) at the time that th~ cause of action arose, or (e) at the time of seM'ice."

9. Allen '\". Superior Court, 41 Cal.2d 806. 259 P.2d 905 (1953). For the Impllcations and possfble future scope of the theorr of this case and its statutory background. see Ebrenzwelg and Mills, Persona; Service outside the State: PellJloyer T. Netr in California, 41 Calif.L.ReT. 888 (1958). Tbe deci· sion Is based on CalCode Civ.Proe. II 412, 413,





§ 28



tice IlDd opportunity to defend:. nnd too brond Ul: ~::....~-:--. u~-, a e s epermitting extraterritorlnl ~ervice W!thout r~d ~-=·Jilh!·!!~~~~ privileges and affords proto such contacts. See also ~mlth v. ~mlth, 4a Cal. tection to him and his property by virtue of 2d 235, :!88 P.:!d 401 (1000). Cnl.Code Civ.Proc. § 417, ns tlmellded. 100i (suprn note ~U, 1l0\V permits his domicile may also exact reciprocal dusuch service in either l'tllle. __ ties." The uncertainties caused by this "pow9a. lIcQee v. International Lite Ins. Co., 3.35 U.S. r" languag (§ 25) ill h to b cl ified 220, is S.Ct. 100 (105;). e e wave a ar 9b. Ehrenzweig, Pennoyer Is Dead-Long J.lve Penooyer, 30 Rocky llt.L.Rev. 28G (1058). 90. Text quoted with approval in L. D. Reeder Contractors of Ariz. v. BIggins Industries, Inc., 265 F.2d i68, 773 (Oth Oir. 1059). See generally Symposium, Transient .Jurisdlctlon-Remnant ot Pennoyer v. Neff, 9 J.Pub.L. 281-337 (lOOO) (Oleary, Cowen. Ehrenzwelg, Leftar, Schlesinger); Lellar, Confilct ot Laws, 36 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 36, 39-44 (1001) i· Horowitz, Bases ot Jurisdiction ot Callfol'Dia Courts to Render Judgments ngainst Foreign Corporations and Non·Resident Individuals, 31 So.OaL L.Rev. 330-389' (19lS8); Kurland, The Supreme Court. the Due Process Clause, and the in Personam .Jurlsdictlon of State Courts-From Pennoyer to Denckla: A Review, 23 U.Ch.L.Rev. 569-624 (1958); Reese and Galston. DOing an Act or Causing Consequences as Bases of Judicial Jurlmllctlon, 44 Iowa L.Rev. 250 (1959) i Comment, 73 Harv.L.Rev. 009

In McGee v. International Life Insurance ant concealing himself within the state to Co.Sa the Supreme Court seems to have avoid process.10 Since in such cases the depromised constitutionality to any attempt at fendant's own conduct may be presumed to acquiring personal jurisdiction over individu- reveal his awareness of the proceedings to be als by constructive service, where the court started against him, this extension is clearly has a "substantial connection" with the case. constitutional. Since, however, this decision involved a corIn Milliken v. Meyer, it was held that poration, and since important reasons exist "domicile in the state is alone suffiCient to against the automatic extension of this gen- bring an absent defendant within the reach of eral formula to individuals,9b the analysis of the state's jurisdiction for purpose of a perspecific fact situations in the light of tradi- sonal judgment by means of appropriate subtional rationalizations continues to be essen- stituted service," and that such substituted tial.9c service may be effected by personal service Concealment, domicile and residence. upon the defendant outside the state, since Statutes providing for service by publication such service is "reasonably calculated to give typically permit such service upon a defend- him actual notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard," as required by "the which provide in pnrt tbat a nonresident olllY be traditional notions of fair play and substanpersonally served with "u copy of the ~ummons .w";"''"'~~. . Ii't' d " 11 nnd complaint out IIf the :-)tate," nnd ure l4ubstan- ~,,~ce unP. C1 m ue process. J tially identIcal with Cl11.l rnct.Act 1851. II 30, 31;. ~-:.::. Rif:G.::the COurt limited itself to this new Whether tbls holding mUlit. be interpreted 11$ re- ·~~o.n81e, much past and future Iitiquiring residence at the tiDle of the ~'Ommence- ~.. ul-d:'':'''9oh h b 'ded TIl ment of the action or at the time when the l'Uuse .__ ~~O .~uaps ave een avOi . eot action I1ro~ Is not clenr. ::ice Ches!n v. ~upe- ~'added; -liowever, that its ruling was rior Court. 142 Col.App.!!d 300, :!08 P.2d 503 (1056)•..:..J.mse.tt'Ean:. the:-- cOnsideration that "the auNeither requirement would he fully satlsfactory.~_ .. :. .• • • both being too OlUTO\V IUld too broad: too nurroW' --::c:&14oc0f7a state over one of Its CItizens 18 in Insisting on former tes!.dence although lither- -='$~'Jijiyi) .tj~~~ the mere fact of his a})... contacts might often better snfeguard adequnte n~. ;.~ffF+~~state" but th t ''th tat

have, however, enacted legislation extending the rule of this case to include both service by publication and ~ domiciliaries departed. for whatever reason.I! The first extension, if limited to absconding domiciliaries, may still be justifiable in the assumption that the defendant had initial knowledge of the proceedings and therefore did not require notification. If this extension is combined, however, as is ordinarily the case, with general applicability to all domiciliaries, the only remaining rationale, rather doubtful in the absence of forum contacts with the case, must rely on the power language of privilege and protection. Notwithstanding language in the Milliken case stressing the defendant's citizenship, the distinction between domiciliaries and resi· dents seems on the way out. Several states have based their service statutes on· mere "residence,"13 and there is no reason to doubt the constitutionality of such legislation. Although the majority of such statutes have been interpreted as requiring domicile and some have even been held to require both domicile and residence, "the distinction between the two concepts is often too shadowy to be capable of description," 14 and sufficiency of "mere" residence is considered reasonable by eminent authority. lIS Indeed, residence alone may be preferable to domicile as
12. In Alvord &: Alvord v. Patenotre, 106 lIlsc. 524, 02 N.Y.S.2d 514 (Sup.0t.1040) [noted 63 Hllrv.L. Rev. 144l (1050», even 11 former domlcillary In transit to his new domicile was held to be subject to personal jurlsdlctlon.

a jurisdictional requirement since it is a "much more objective concept and can be proved or disproved by the actual facts." 16 Business within the state. In Flexner v. Farson.11 the U. S. Supreme Court had invalidated a personal judgment obtained upon service on an agent of nonresident individuals, because of lack of consent to such service. Holmes, J., had pointed out that such consent could not be implied in the absence of the state's power, available as to foreign corporations, to exclude the defendant from the state. IS Sixteen years later, similar service was upheld in Henry L. Doherty & Co. v. Goodman 19 on the alternative ground that the defendant's business consisted of selling securities subject to the regulatory power of the state. It is likely, however, that the Court will yet approve statutory jUrisdiction over any nonresident who "conducts business within the State. . on any action arising out of the conduct of said business," without regard to whether o~ not. the state had power to exclude sucn bUsiness.20 In every
16. lIyrick l'. Superior Court, snprn note S.

17. Flexner v. Farson, 248 IT.S. 280, 39 S.Ct OT (1010).
18. See Pennsylvanln Fire Ins. Co. v. ('.old Issue :\JIninJr &: lIming Co., 243 U.S. 03, 00, :r. S.Ct. 344. 345 (1017).

by what may be a lengthy process of trial and error. The Milliken case involved personal service outside the state based on a statute providing for such service upon a domiciliary departed from the state to avoid service. Many states

19. Henry L. Doherty &; Co. v. Goodman. 2M U.S. 023, 55 S.Ct. 55.1 (1035); Xotes. !!3 CllIIt.r... Rev. 48'1 (1935); 48 Han.L.Rel'. 1433 (1035); 45. Yale L.J. 1100, 1103 (lOOlS): 20 Iowa L.Re\·. 853 (1935). 20. WelD v. Crockett. 113 taah 301. 195 P.2d 222 (1048), upholding Utah Laws 10·11, c. 10. [noted. 47 lIlcb.L.Rev. :rrs (1048». See nJso lIcDnniel v. TextUe Workers Uolon ot America. 2lH S.W.2d 1 (Tenn.App.E.S.1952) [noted 8 \"and.L.Rev. i83 (10a;j)]; lIelvio Pine &: Co. v. lIcConnell. 2118 X.Y. 27, SO N.E.2d 137 (1048) [Involving ~.Y.Clv.PrAct, Sec. 229-b]. See nJso Goodrich ::07. But see Condon v. Snipes, 205 1I1ss. 306, 38 So.2d i52 (1940), ''p~ tennlttlng" the question ot "'hether a state regulatory power is a condition of tbls jurisdiction. See, In general, Scott, Jurisdiction over Xonresldeots. Doing Business within tbe State, 32 Harv.L.Rev. 871 (1919); Cl1lp, Process In Actions against Non· Residents Doing Business witbin a State, 32 lllch.L.Rev. 000 (1083); Notes, 37 Geo.L.J. 506 (1949); 28· Neb.LJ. 635 (1949); 3 Duke B.J_ 'is (1053); Ebrenzwelg, supra note Db.

See, In general, Reese and Green, That Elusive Word, "Residence," 6 Vand.L.Rev. 561. 569 (lD53); Reese. Does Domicil Bear 11 Slogle lIeanlng?, 5a Col.L.Rev. 580 (1053).

See e.g. Cal. Code Clv.Proc. § 412: Wyo.Stat.1951, R.S.O. 4(d) (6). As to the required search tor the defendant, see A.Dno.. 21 A.L.R.2d 920; § 28 note 38. or. Dickenson v. Babich, 213 Or. 472, 328 P.2d· 446 (:mISS).

II. Mllliken v. lIeyer, 3ll U.S. 457, 482, 463, 61· S.Ct. 339, :us (1940). See also e. g. Sorensen .,. Overland Corp., 242 F.2d 70 (3d Olr. 1957), per Goodrich, J.; Note. 41 CoLL.Bev. 724 (1941); Rest. I 79;: Rest., ;rudgments (1942) t 16.

14; Reese and Green, That Elusive Word, uResI_ dence," 6 Vand.L.Rev. 561, 580 (1053). See also Smith v. Smith, supra note 9; Xote, 63 Harv.L. Rev. 1-141 (1950); Ehrenzweig IlDd lIllls, Personal Service outside the State: Pennoyer v. Self In Oalitornla, 41 CalIf.L.Rev. 383 (1053). For a· German studY, see lIann, Der "gewohnilche Autenthalt" 1m lPR, II J.z. 466 (lD56). 15. Goodrich 193, n. 101. l!'or strong· advocacy, see Cook 87. But ct. Rest., Judgments (1942) I 16•.




:u and other absent consenting own-and to actions against executors and of nonresident motorists.~


casetbe particular state statute must be ex- regarding actions against nonresident motoramined since there are many states which ists accruing from an accident within the have not gone as far as they could constitu- state.h This holding was based upon an tionally go,:1 and others may have made pro- assumption of implied consent and upon the visio;n for certain types of business.U power of the state to "make and enforce regulations reasonably calculated to promote That ceasing to do business within the state care on the part of all, residents and nondoes not deprive that state of jurisdiction over residents alike, who use its highways." 211 a domestic cause of action seems clear. U This early inroad on the Pennoyer _rule, And, indeed, such jurisdiction might still be which had insisted upon personal service explained, however fictitiously, as based on within the ·state (§ 27), has become one of an irrevocable consent implied in past busithe principal .instruments in the gradual ness activities. But the need for a more breakdown of that rule. To be sure, nonrealistic rationale will become obvious if and resident motorist statutes mqst now prowhen courts will, in the presence of "minivide "for communication to the proposed demum contacts" between state, cause, and fendant".16 But the' doctrine of the Hess parties, subject to their jurisdiction nonresicase has been extended to accidents off the dent individuals no longer engaged in busihighway; 17 to non-resident renting agenness within the state, even as to causes of action accrued outside, as they have done 24. Hess v. PawloskI, 274 U.S. 352, 4i S.Ct. 632 with ·regard to foreign corporations (§ 33). (1927). Ct Scott, JUrlsdietion over Non-Resident
Motorists, 39 Han-.L.Re,·. 563 (1926); Culp, Process

Nonresident motorist statutes are...usually (though not always) 30 limited to motorists monresident at the time of the accident. . 'Persons resident at that time but nonresident . ,;at the time of the commencement of the suit thus ordinarily not be served within the -;state. A difficult question may, therefore, under such statutes if the defendant .soved from the state between the time of '1I1e accident and that of attempted service. 31 If such persons are not to be left "in a favored . position as compared with nonresidents, tI 311 ..a statutory provision permitting constructive "'SerVice on former residents should be con-sldered constitutional. The Supreme Court . ·of California has so held.33


Act withintbe state. In Hess v. Pawloski, the Supreme Court upheld a statute providing for constructive service upon a state officer
Whether "substantial and not isolated actil'lties within the state" are a constitutional basis of jurisdiction ovcr lndll'iduals C,'Cll If tllcr are not tile basis of the cause of action [see on the WisconSin statute. Foster. Expandin~ Jurisdiction o\"cr Non-residents, [195!)) WIs.Bar Bull. 3. 11) remains to be seen. 8ee lteese Ilnd Galston, supra note {lc. at 2M; Infra notes 44-!i. The Illlnois statute, even insofar as it doe~ contain the latter requirement, has been held to require compliance with the Hanson test. intra f 33 note 6Ob. Ka,'e-liartln l'. Brooks. 2Gi F.2d 394, ani (ith Cir, 1959), cen, den. 301 U.S. 83!!. 80 S.Ct. 84 (1959). In Conn l'. Whitmore, 9 Utah 2<l 200. 3-12 P.2cl Sil. Sia (19:;9), an Illinois judgment was refused recoJmltion on the alternative ground that the Dllnois statute, if broadly interPreted, would be unconstitutional.

10 Actions 8Jminst Non-Resident Motorists. 32 Mlcll, LoBel'. S25 (1935); Note, 4. Mlch.L.Rel'. ~93 (1940).

For a list of pertinent statutes, see Knoop T. Anderson, 'i1 F.Snpp. 832. 836 (N.D. Iowa 194i). AFt to aeeldents outside tbe state. see e. g. Geborek l'. Bri~ Transp. Co., 139 l . ·.Supp. 'i (N.D.lll.1!l5fi). On nermlssihle retroactivity. see Steffen T, Little. 2 Wls.2d &'iO. 80 N.W.2d 622 (19m): Owens l'. Superior Court. 52 CaI.2() 822.845 P.2d D21. 9211 (19a9); and generally Anno., uS A..L.R.2d 11M.
25. Hess l'. PawloskI, 274 U,S. 352, 350, 47 S.Ct. 082. 033 (192;). Cf. Goodrich 201. 2()..l. The ques· tion, whether "implied consent" is 8 prOller rationale of nonresident motorist statutes for tIle purpose of their appllcnblUty in federal courts, was denied by the Supreme Court In Olberding ,'. Dlinols Central n. R., 346 U.S. 338, 7~ S.Ct. (1008). As to corporatiOns, see infra § 33.

~dy's Frosted Foods, Inc., 18 N.J. 61, 112 A..2d .529 (1955). For other extensions, see Foster. Personal Jurisdiction Based on Local Causes of Action, '[19M] Wls.L.Re\". 522. ~48 (1050). See also Stumberg. Extcnslon of Nonresldcnt Motorist Statutes to Those not Operators. 44 Iowa L.Rel'. 268 (1959); Anno.. 58 A.L.R.2d 1351. .~. McDonald Sup. Court, 48 Cal.2d 621, 275 P.2d . 464 (1954). But see Lanen ,e. Powell, 117 F.Supp. 239 (D.C.Colo.1958); Whalen l'. "foung, 15 N.J. 821, 1M A.2d 078 (1954) for a possible counter-trend. 3a. Davis v. St. Paul-Mercury IndemnIty Co., 294 F.2d 641 (4th Clr.1961) (Sobeloff, C.J.). See genernUl' Stumberg, Extension of Nonresident Motorist Statutes to Those not Operators, 44 Iowa LoRev. .268 (19~9).

Another problem not yet satisfactorily solved, is posed in cases where .tbe nonresident motorist, despite compliance with stat· utory requirements, had not been actually notified and has thus failed to render a timely report to his liability insUrer. Co~ will reach contradictory results 3f according to whether they wish to interpret the policy provision llterally as requiring such reports merely upon receipt of actual notice,ss or broadly to protect the insurer's interest in immediate notification.~ The Uniform Aeronautical Code 31 would extend the Hess doctrine to airplanes, still well within the proposition that this doctrine be limited to acts "dangerous to life or property." 88 But it has been asked-why "isn't it also good to hold the nonresident defendant for trial within the state to determine liability arising from activities within the state concerning a motor boat, a gun, a stick of dynamite, a club, a heavY fist, a sharp tongue, or even .a cr~oked mind"? 39 Indeed, as to
Neff in Califomin, 41 CaUlL.Re\". 383 (1953); and now Ca1.Code CIl'.Proc. § 41i, as amended 19:;7. supra note 8. Sec also Dambach, Persona) Jurisdiction: Some Current Problems and Modem Trends, G U.C.L.A.L.ltel'. 19S (1058); Horowitz, 8Upra note 9c. 34. See CoJoment, 6G Yale L.J. 152 (1956). 35. Staples ,'. Southern Fire &: ens. Co.• 2S9 S.W.2d 512 (Ay.195G). 36. Tennant l'. Fann Bureau Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 286 App.Dil'. lli, 141 N.Y.S.2d 449 (1055). Proposed Uniform Aeronautical Code I 704: Hotchkiss, Aviation Law (2d ed. 1038) 465, 494, See also Conn.Gen.Stat.Anu. § 15-87 (1D58); Ann.Code of Mel. Art. 75 § 70 (lDS7); Mass.Gen.La,,·s AUIl. cOO, ! 50 (1958); Mlnn.Stat.Ann. § 360.0, 21ti (1057); N.J.Stat.Ann. § 6:5-3 (1959); N.Y.Gen.Bus.Law § 250; 1960 Pa.Purdon's StaLAnn. tit. 2, § 1410; Va.Code § 8-67.4 (1957). See 1n general Note, 29 N.D. Lawyer 640 (1054); and Boches T. MiamI Airline, 111 F.Supp. 133 (N.J.I0fiS). 38. Rest.. Judgments (1942) § 2a. But see Rest. Second, Tent.Draft No. 4 (1957) I £1437.



21. See e.g. Rosenblum l'. Judson Engineering Corp.. 99 N.H. 2Gi, 109 A.2d ~ (19M); Fulda, Service of Process on Nonresident IndivIduals DOing Business within the State, N.Y.La\\' Rev.Comm.Beports, [l940] Uc.l36. 22. See e.g. infra DOtes 4S. 4;. 23. See e.g. :Meehl T. Barr Transfer Co.• 805 Mich. 276, 9 N.W.2d 540 (1948): Rest., Judgments (1942) t 22, comment d. But see as to federal courts, e.g. Schreiber l'. Loew's Inc., 14i F.Supp. 319 ('\V.D. )llch.1957); and in general Hart and Wechsler. Tbe Federal Courts and the Federal System (1953) 957ft; infra § 33 notes 86. 58.

26. Wuehter T. Pizzutti, supra note 2; Bah'ln l'. Talcott, supra note 2. Actunl receipt Is not required. Staples l'. Southern JNre &: Cas. Co., 289 S.W.2d 512, 515 <Ky.l950). Notice may precede service. Caste1l1ne T. Goldfine Truck Rental Serl'ice. 48 Del. 550, 112 A..2d 840 (1955). Constructi\"e service under SUeh statutes may be held to be per80nal Be1'\'Jce for other PUl')lOSes. Solot T. Linch, 46 Cal.2d 00, 292 P.2d 88i (1956). 27. Sipe T. Moyers, 358 Pa. 75, 44 A.2d 263 (1945); Bertrand T. Wilds, 198 TenD. 543, 281 S.W.2() 390 (1955). ct. O'SulllTaD v. Bro\'\'Jl, 111 F.2d 100 (5th Clr.1948); Kelley T. Koetting,.l64 Kiln. 542, 100 P.2d 361 (1948); 46 Mlch.L.Bel'. 1128 (1948). Bllt ct. McDonald v. Sup. Ct., 43 CalApp.2d 621, 2GB r. 2d 1076 (1954); Langley T. Bunn, 225 Ark. 651. 284 S.W.2d 319 (1955); De Luee v. Consolidated Frelsht Lines, 132 F.Supp. 8§3 (E.D.N.Y.l9&i); Lindsey v.

29. Supra § 23 note 11. For a narrow interpretation of a nonresident motorist statute In this re8PCet, SCC! Gregory,·. White, 151 F.Supp. 701 (W.D. S.C.l9-:;7).


See e.g. N.Y.Laws 1941, Co 248: 7 N.Y.Jud.Counc. Rep. 41 (1941); Notes, 3; CalltL:Bev. SO, 90 (1949); 32 Neb.L.Bel'. 413 (1958).

:31. See e.g. Northwestern Mortgage &: Security Co. v. Noel Construction Co.• 71 N.D. 256, 300 N.W. 28 (1941) : Clark T. Reichman, 180 Colo. 829, 275 P. 2d 952 (1954).

~ MyrIck l'. Superior Court, 256 P.2d 348 (Cal.Dist.
Ct.1953). afl"d 41 0al.2d 519, 261 P.2d 205 (1953). But see Colon v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines. Inc., 2i N.J.. Super. 2SO. 99 A..2d 181 (1953).


.:33. Allen l'. Superior Court, 41 C8l2d 800. 259 P.2d iI05 (1958). See also Ogdon v. Gianakos. 415 IlL .691, 114 N.E.2d 686' (1953); Ehrem:we1g and Mills, Personal Service outside the State: Pennoyer v.
ElvenzwtIG Conflict of


39. Joiner, Let's Bal'e Michigan Torts Declded In Michigan Courts, 31 Mich.SLB.J. 5, 12 (19l'2). See also Goodrich 202 i Degnan, SemI-Direct Action against Liability Insurers: Current Problems, 13 Vand.L.Rev. Si1, 878 (1960). On the Penosyll'ODia Non-ResIdent Vessel Owner Act, see Summers T. Skibs A/S Myken, 191 F.Supp. 929 (E.D.Pa.1961), See also Infra note 47.


(LOCAL) JURISDICTION AND PROPER PROCE&.') Finally, this theory of jurisdiction, once so extended, is likely to dispense with any test looking to the place of the cause Of. action, a test which would inflict upon the law of jurisdiction many of the intricate problems now besetting the law of choice of law:" In actions for damages arising out of . aircraft accidents, several states have provided for constructive service upon any nonresident, individual or corporation, operating an "aircraft from any airfield in this state,'··' without regard to whether the accident occurred within the state.-IG It may be hoped that such statutes will yet be held constitutional,-Ia as have been other statutes which have been interpreted as permitting constructive service as to activities subject to the police power of the state in the regulation of "the health. safety and· welfare of those within its borders." 4'
44. Under IU.Clv.Pr.Act H 17(1) the couse of action need 110t have nrisen in Illinois if it involves hlUiin~ trnnsacted or torts ("'Ommitted within the state. ~ee Cleary nnd Seder, !fUpl'a note 43, at 009. Cf. ne=;t.~econtl, Tent.Drnft ~o• .J: (lOai) t Sl- with ndditlonal references. See also supra note 20 ; infra § 33 notes iJ3-58: and J;enernlly Ehrenzweig In Reply, ~. J .Pub.L. 328. 320-331 (1000). 45. Ne\v York Laws 1952. c. i4S. amended Laws 105.1, c. 148. See also ~.J.Stats.1052, Co 109; Note, 6 Vantl.L.ltev. 041 ( 1 0 5 3 ) . 46. But cL Peters ~. Robin Airlines, 281 App.Dlv. 003. 1:!0 N.Y.S.2(1 1 (1053), rev'g on this grount!, 118 N.Y.S.:!d 238 (1052). While this case relates to a corporate defentlant, the statute Involved Is In terms applicuble to int11vhluals. See ~ote, U Iowa L.Rev. fi6'l (10"'.>6). Note,:''O S.D.Lawyer, 640 (105-l) lists. eight lStates hnvlng such statutes. ~ee Infra § 33 . note as. 47. Sugg v. HendrIX, 142 F.2d 740 (5th Cir. 1044).. upholding a lllssissippi statute purporting generally to permit service on n state otllcer us to nonresident individunls and corporationtl, os to levee construction \vork; and Dnvis v. ~ugent, 00 F.Supp. 322 . (S.D.lllss.l950), upholding the some statute as to . wholesale lumber business. See also TardUf v. Bank Lines, Ltd., 127 F.Supp. 045 (E.D.Ln..l954); Goltzman v. Rougeot, 122 F.Supp. 700 (W.D.Ln.1054) (operators of boats In Loo1s1ana waters); Frailk·· 11n ~. Tomlinson Fleet Corp., 158 F.Supp. 8lSO (N.D. 111.1051) (Ill. Nonresident Water Craft Act); Ehrenzweig, supra. note Db, nt 291, as to the possible rene\ved relevance of "police power" tests In the law of juriSdiction o\'er Individuals. Cf. Rott-· schaeffer. American Constitutional Low (1939) 858;Leftar, Conftlct of Laws, 33 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 131, 1.3& (1958); supra. note 20.

§ 29


corporations, these contacts have been held sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction (§ 33). And the new Dlinois Civil Practice Act claiming such jurisdiction as to both individuals and corporations, is likely to be upheld.40 Whether it is sufficient for the injury to have been sustained in the state and, if it is not, what additional contacts are required to satisfy the constitutional minimum standard, has not been settled:'oa Once these or similar extensions were accepted, there would be Uttle reason for excluding transactions other than torts. In accordance with English practice,.u any nonresident could be subjected to this jurisdiction who has voluntarily engaged in domestic transactions, to the benefit of American business in its international relations.-&! At least as to insurance contracts this extension has been enacted by some states.",3
m.clv.proc.Aet § n (m.~\nn.Stat. (1958) Co 110). In Xelson \'. lllller. 11 lll.2d 3iS, 143 ~.E.:!fl 6i3 (l00i). this ~tntute was IlIJheid In relation to ordinary negligence committed hy defendant's employee. See l(cGee v.. International Life Ins. Co., :za U.S: :!:!O. is S.Ct. 100 (105il, infra § 33 note ;jO. cr. l(orpn ~. Heckle, 111 F.Supp. 482 (E.D.DUD"'oJO). ~ee nlso Owens r. Superior Court, ri2 Ca1.2d 822, :WG P.:!d 021. 025 (1059). per Traynor, J.; Anno., is A.L.R.2d 307. . 4Oa. On the WLc;consin statute. see Fo.c;ter, supra note :!O, nt 1~20, inclndlng a compnrnth'e survey. See also Anno., is A.L.R.2d 301. FOr states which have followed the Illinois Ilnd Wisconsin models, iOP.9 ~.l['Stnt.Ann. (Supp.101Jl) § 21-31-16; WlUlh. Rf~\".Code (~npp.105f)) § 4.28.1&:;. ~\ folimilnr Texas sratute has beea held unconstitutional. Lone Star ~(otor Import. Inc. \'. Citroen Cars Corp.. 185 F. SuPP. -IS (S.D.Tex.l960). rev'd on other ground 288 F.2<1 69 (5th Clr. 1001),· But ct. Atkins \'. Jones &: Laughlin Steel Corp;, :!58 lUnn. 5n, 104 N.W.2d 888.804 (1060), GnlloJl1er, J. 41. .\nnual Prnctice (1002), Oreler XI, Rule I, Subnde (e). Similar rules are followed by nlmost all European countries. Sunderlnnd, The Problem of Jurisdiction... Tex.L.Re'·. 420, 442 (1026); supra § 25 note -li. As to personal jurisdiction o\'er corporations in this. respect, see Note, :!2 U.ChI.L.Rev. tJj... (1000); infra t. 33.. 42. Sunderland, supra note 41, at 442. 43. Ill.Cl\'.Prnc.Act: § IT (ill.Rev.Stat. (1954) c. 110]. Cf. . Cleary nnd Seder, Extended JUrisdictional Bases for the Dilnols Courts, 50 ~.W.U.L.Rev. 599, 606 (1953); ~ote, 31 N.D.Lawyer 223 (1956). On the broader provisions of the WIsCOnsin act, see Foster. supra note 20, at 20-22.

Property withbr the state. Since the Pen- . hand, limitation to property "dangerous to noyer case (§ 27) property has. supported life and property" 51 would introduce an elejurisdiction in persQnam only if brought un.. ment foreign to the general rationale, while der the control of lbe court (§ 29). More adoption of a test of "reasonableness" 5S recently, however, ownership of property as would merely point up the need for a doctrine such has, in some cases, been used as a basis of competency in the forum conveniens (§ of personal jurisdiction. Thus, personal ju.. 25). risdiction was upheld in a suit for injuries caused by a defective sidewalk against a non-· § 29. Controlled property (uQuasi-in~ident property owner served constructive- rem jurisdiction"). A rationale similar to Iy in accordance with a statute of the for- that underlying the cases of express and imurn. 48 And at least one state has provided for plied consent (§ § Z7 f.) has been invoked to Umited personal jurisdiction over anybody support ~he rule that a court may, in a perwho "owns, uses or possesses any real estate ~on:u actIon, acquire a limited "quasi-in-rem" situated" within its borders.oIe It may well be lunsdiction, This jurisdiction is used to apthat this kind of personal jurisdiction will be Ply. to ~e satisfa~tion of a claim, a thing or further extended by the inclusion of causes of obligation belongmg to the nonresident deaction not connected with the property, thus f~ndant an~ situated within the court's terclosely approaching the civilian conception ntory. It IS required for this purpose that of the "property forum." Civilian experience such thing or obligation be "brought under with this institution has, however not been the control of the court by seizure or some an altogether happy one.:JO On 'the other equivalent act." 1 This power contact is considered sufficient for due process even without personal service within the state, because 48. Dubin v. Philnclel~hia·, !l4 D. &: C. Rl (Pa.D.C. 1(38). See also Rumig i. Ripley lUg. Co.• :lO6 Pa. "the law assumes that property is always in :H3. j j A.2d 360 (1951); ~ote, U.Pa.L.Re\·. 119 (1038). In Owens v. Superior Court, i)2 Cal2d 822. the possession of its owner; in person or by :W5 P.2d 921, 024 (1959), per Traynor, J., "ownership agent; and . . _ that its seizure will in.. and po~lon of the offending dog. . . . nlone [was held] sutllcient nnder the One Process Clause form him, not only that it is taken intc> the custody of the court, but that he must look • • ." See Anno., 78 A.L.R.2d 391, 404. to any proceedings authorized by law upon 49. Dl.Clv.Pl'.Act I 17(e). As to whether this jurisdiction excludes service of publlcation in· actions In rem, such seizure for its condemnation and sale."·
compare Hlcke1, 45 IlLB.J. 340 (1OOi); Seder, itl. nt 341 (1051). See genemlly ~ote, Ownership, Possession. or Use of l»roperty as 11 Basis of In Personam Jurisdiction. 44 Io\va L.Rev. 314 (1959). 219, 122 N.Y.S.2d 232 (1053), off'd 306 N.Y. 811, 118 Y.E.2d 822 (If)3.1). See also ~otes, 35 ColL.Rev. 703
(1985), 41 Col.L.Rev. 548 (1941).


The following bypothetlcal case is often used to demonstrate Its weakness. In order to obtain a property forum against a foreign defendant, suit could conceivably be brought against· him In a chosen court in the expectation that that court will dismiSS it for Inck of jurisdiction and tox counsel fees against the plaintiff-thus creating an asset of the defendnnt upon which property jurisdiction enn now be based. Cf. Ehrenzweig. Shall Counsel Fees be M1owed?, 26 Ca.I1t.St.B.J. 101 (1D51). A Similar "bootstrap jortsdlctlon" was sought by stockholders of a Pnnama corporation, wbo tried to obtain the required jurisdiction over the corporation as n necessary party to the proposed suit ngainst two of Its resident directors by ~avlng. n receiver appointed; the New York Court's jurlsdlction to be based on th&-nlleged causes· of action-as sole assets in New York. Application of Borge. 282 App.Dlv.

51. Rest. I Sl (ns nmended 1048). Rest. Second, Teut. Draft Yo. 4 (1951) , 84a. I. Pennoyer v. Yefl', 05 U.S. 714, i27 (1817). See !'lote, The Requirement of Seizure In the Exercise of Qunsiln Rem Jurisdiction: Pennoyer v. Yeff Reeumtn¢, 63 Harv.L.Rev. 651 (1950). "Foreign attachment" as a device for obtaining jurisdiction over the fugltlve debtor, has an ancient history. See e.g. llorrls, Select Cases of the Mayor's Court ot New York City 1614-1784 (1985) 14, lOfl'.: Beale. The Exercise of Jurisdiction in Rem to Compel PaJDlent of n· Debt. 2i Harv.L.Rev. 101 (1913); Rlesenteld, Creditors' Remedies nnd tbe Con1llct of Laws, 60 Colum.L.Rev. 650 (1960); Currie, At. tllellment nod Garnishment In the Federal Courts, 59 lUleb.L.Rev. 331 (1961). See also intra· note 13. 2". Pennoyel' v. Nett, supra note 1, at 721. See also •. ' 28 note-3D.



Ch. 1




Eoth rule and rationale lose their persuasiveness where they are applied.to the "seiz.. u.~u of intangibles whose situs cannot readDy be estabbshee. It is with regard to such intangibles, therefore, that the most troublesome cases conceming this kind of jurisdiction have arisen. 3

sires to sue Balk, a resident of North Car0-


lina, upon an alleged debt. Since the latter never visits Maryland and has no property there, the suit would have to be brought m North Carolina were it not for the fact that one day Harris, a North Carolina resident, who allegedly owes a sum to Balk, visits Maryland where he is promptly served in garnishment proceedings with a summons ·and a declaration against Balk. Under the prevailing rule, the Maryland court thereby acquires jurisdiction quasi-in..rem against Balk.' This jurisdiction is-limited to the determination of Epstein's claim,G and leaves unaffected Balk's claim against Harris beyond the part subjected to garnishment. Moreover, the gamishment does not merge the original cause of action against Balk; and a dismissal of the garnishment suit would not have been a bar to a suit against Balk on the principal debt.6 But there remain several un3, See e. g., PennlnJrton \'". Fourth Nntlonal Bank of CIncinnatI, 243 U.S. 269. 37 S.Ct. 282 (1917) (bank account); Whitelaw T. Whitelaw, 113 N.E.2d 105 (Ohio, Cuyahoga Co. 1002) (beneficiary's interest In life insurance poncyl: Blume, Actions Quasi in Rem under Section 1655. Title 28 U.S.C.. 50 Mich. L.Re\". 1 (loal); Note. 31 'Iale L.J. 425 (1922). 4. Barris T. Balk, 198 U.S. 215, 25 S.Ct. 625 (1905). 5. Judgment against the garnishee apparently presupposes judgment against the principal debtor. General Maintenance Eng. v. Pac. Veg. on Corp., 175 Pa.Super. 350, 104 A.2d 505 (19M). See also Clyne T. Easton, Eldridge 4: Co., 148 Cal. 287, 8S P. 86 (1905). 6. Buff T. Buff, 86 Pa. 333 (1877); cited with approval, New "Iork LIfe Ins. Co. T. Dunlevy, 241 U.s. fil8, fl22, 36 s.Ct. 613, 614 (1916). Of. Benderson v. Northwest Airlines, 231 ll1Dn. 503, 43 N.W.2d 786 (1950) (no quasl-In·rem juriSdiction upon garnishee's cUsclosure denying indehtedness); and in general Note, 85 Mlnn.L.ReT. 501 (1951). See also Atkinson T. Superior Court, 49 Oal.2d S88, 816 P.2d 960, -963 (1957), c:ert. den. 857 U.S. 569, 78 S.Ot. 1381 (1958).

.solved problems concerning 1he garnishee's .and the debtor's protection which are caused, on the one hand, by the uncertainty of the situs m intangibles, and, on the other hand, by the purely fortuitous character of the basis of this jurisdiction which lacks a relation to either the parties or the case. ·Place of payment, the garnishment debtor's" or garnishment creditor's domicile, or the fonner's presence have been held to establish the situs of the debt. 8 Let us assume that Harris and 'Balk had stipulated payment in CalifOrnia, and the California law finds the situs of the debt at the place of payment. .Although Harris never set foot on California soU, Epstein might have garnished his debt in a California court and $el"Ved him by publication if the statute so provided. Whether this procedure would ·violate due process is uncer.. tain.1I The Supreme Court has ·refrained from establishing a federal test, as it has wltli
See Estln T. Estln, 8S4 U.s. MI, 648, 68 s.Ct. 1213, 1218 (1048). 8. Stumherg 107; Minor, Conflict of Laws (1001) § 12!i; 1 Beale, Conflict of Laws (l935l 460; Swenson. ConBlct of Laws Problems under the Iowa Garnis))ment Statutes, 84 Iowa L.ReT. 600, 614, 616, 620 (1949). 9. Attempts at obtaining competing jurisdiction of the garnislled claim are somewhat discouraged by the rule that garnishment proeeedlnJ!s are entitled to recognition even prior to judlnDent where ther create a lien under the law of the garnishment state. Sanders T. Armour FertiUzer Works, 292 U.S. 100, 64 S.Ot. 677 (1984); Swenson, supra note 8, at 682. MoreoTer, statutory prohibitions or judicial injunctions are designed to prevent creditors from circum· venting exemption statutes of the debtor's state by attaching property outside that state. Stewart T. Thomson, 91 Ky. li7ii, 31 S.W. 133 (]895); Wlerse T. Thomas. 145 N.C. 261, 59 S.E. 68 (1907). See Wilson T. Josephs, 107 Ind. 490, 8 N.E. 616 (1886); Sweeney v. Bunter, 145 Pa. 368, 22 A. 653 (1891). Sometimes comity will be extended to foreign exemption statutes. Schroeder Wine 4: Liquor Co. T. Willis Coal &: lUning Co., 179 Mo.App. 93, 161 S.W. 352 (1918); Strawn Mercantile Co. v. First National Bank, 279 S.W. 473 (Tex.Clv.App.1926). But see Ferneau T•. Armour &: Co., 80S S.W.2d 161 (M0.App.1957). This comity at the plalnWf's expense may violate due process, as does, under certain circumstances, comIty at the defendant's ~ (H 41 note 11, 48 note 31). ADd prohibitions and Injunctions are not likely to offer better protection than the threat of damage claImS. Anderson v. Canaday, 87 Okl. In. 181 P. 697 (1918). , ,

.~ to domicile in actions for divorce (§ ·~2) and inheritance taxation~10 The Court's

"1961 ruling in the escheat case (§ 49) of Wes:tern Union Telegraph Co. v. Commonwealth j()f pennsYlvania loa may foreshadow· a new ap-

1lfOach.l0b 'But all we know from the leadingcase of Harris v, Balk U is that a debt u -may be garnished where personal juris.;diction over the garnishment debtor can .!be obtained; and some states have not even nlade full use of this constitutional power.13 While always inconvenient for the gar·nishee, the multiple situs of his debt for purposes of, quasi..in-rem jurisdiction over his creditor becomes highly detrimental where .'Several courts claim and exercise concurrent jurisdiction.u Recognition of the first judgment depends on whether it was recovered in a sister state or in a foreign countrY;: ~.: ~:


~ .;;~~:=:..:::

-10. Of. In re Dorrance's Estate;8OfI~"'.1.:A.


·303 (1932); Id.. 115 N.J.Eq. ..2GS...i1:P'a'iiil"H£il934), afrd 18 N.J.MIsc. lOB. 176A. 002,.2iif3i.~ttifi.J.L.

At least where a sister state. garnishment was based upon person~ jurisdiction against the garnishee, the latter is in general protected against a similar proceeding in another state by the holding in Harris v. Balk 11 which requires North .Garolina to give fuD faith and credit to the .proceedings in Mary.. land. While this rule gives full protection to Harris, the garnishee, it f8lls to protect Balk, the principal debtor. The Supreme Court has taken account of 'this fact by a somewhat unique modification ·of its general treatment of full faith and Credit to proceedmgs as a principle 'of unconditional obedience (§ 49). It has restricted constitutional recognition of garnishment decrees to cases in which the garnishee has not committed a "neglect of duty" by failing "to give proper notice to his creditor of the levying of the attachment. n 16 Moreover, ·quasi..inrem jurisdiction has remained subject to the ·requirements of interstate· commerce. t ': But there remains in any event-[to borrow judicial language used in connection with a related situation] ,-the fact that under the present rule the Constitution is
·15. Bnrrls T. Balk, 19S U.S. 215, 25 S.Ct. 625 (1900). Set> al,;o Snnders ,'. Armour Fertilizer Works.. 2U2 U.S. 100. 5-1 S.Ct. 07; (1934); .Huron Holdlnl! ConI. T. Llnt'Oln :\line OIK'rntinJ! Co.. 312 U.S. 18.1. G1 S. Ct, Gl:1 (10-41); Baltimore & 01110 n. n. T. BOf;tt!ner. 240 U.S. 020. 30 S.Ct. 470 (1016). As to corpor:ltC garnishees. see, e. g., MechaniCS Finance Co. ". Aus· till, 8 N.J. iii7, 86 A.2d 417 (lUG!!); Marvins CJ'C!dlt, Inc. '-. Gelleral Motors Corp., 11i1 A.2d 44; (Mun.Ct. D.C.I0:.o): Ralforll T. House, 110 F.::)uPJl. 918 (W.D. Mo.l05S); C. S. Foreman CO. T. B. D. Zachry Co.. 122 F.Supp. 859 (W.D.llo.l954). See also CoDlJDCDt. 1 Stanf.L.Bev. 546 (1949); 'Swenson, ConfiiCl of Laws Problems under the Iowa Garnishment Stat· utes, 34 Iowa L.BeT. 605 (1949).

362,184 A. 743 (1935). Thc-Supremi~m~ut:e(l to re,'lew thl' New Jersey deelslonr'thoiih:sthey were Irreconcilnbll' "'Uh the IlennJlyl\,Ani~:..:ftndln!:. 298 U.S. 678, 56 S.Ct. 078,('1030). '-oD1.T:i~e-enS(' did the Court itself determine.tho ..d1:IDiieDeilaDd in that case apparently only.'as a ·co11l't:Gf'~ jurisdiction. Texns ". Florida. 300 'tt~>s.Ct. 563 (]939). See also Comment, 75 :'BRr-q.LaleT•. 0:;:1 (1002); supra § 26 note 49; infra ·!1'21iOtt::tl6.

lOa. Western Union Tele~raph Co. T. Commonwealth of PennsylTanin, 368 U.S. 71, 82 S.Ot. 199 (1961). Ob. See LoulseU and Bazard. PleadIng and Procedure: State and Federal (1902),

II. Barris


Balk, 19S U.S. 215, 2:; S.Ot. 625 (1905).

12. Barris T. Balk, 198 U.S. 215, 223. 25 S.Ct. 625, 627 (100:;) speaks of "Ordinarr debts." As to judgment debts, sec Huron Bolding Corp. T. Lincoln Mine Operating 'Co., 312 U.S. 183. 61 S.Ct. li13 (1941); and in rreneral Swenson. f1UJlrn note 8, at 621ft; Riesenfeld, supra note 1, at 676-678.


See, e. g., Alpers T. New Jersey Bell Tel. Co., 403 Pa. 626, 170 A.2d 860 (1961); Continental Purchas· ing Co. T. Wi11Jams, 132 N.J.L. 445, 41 A.2d 121 (1945) ; Note, 3G Mlnn.L.Rey. 543 (1952). For a history of garnishment in the United States and England. see Mussman and Blesenfeld. Garnish· ment and Bankruptcy, 27 Minn.L.BeT. 1, 1 (1942). Ot. Beale, Con1llct of Law~ (1935) I 108.8; Beale, The Exercise of Jurisdiction In Rem to Compel Payment ot a Debt, 27 Barv.L.Rev. 107 (1913). ~4. See also supra note 9.

Barris T. Balk, supra note 15. at 228. The rul(' of the Rest. § 108, comment Co [Rest. Second. Tent Draft No. 4 (1957) I 108, comment d) is less strlri gent, In requiring merely a reasonable attempt 8t notlfication or the principal defendant's actUal knowledge. Where full faith and credit to II prior garnishment is forfeited by the garnlsbee falliDJ: to notify his creditor, recognition of such judJ!Dlent may be against due process. See Goodrich l~

17. Atchison, Topeka « Santo Fe R. n. T. Wellf;. 26~· U.S. 101, 44 S.Ot. 469 (1924). See infra § 40 DOte:341f•

. J




Ch. 1

§ 30





"placed in an unseemly Ught by suggesting that the constitutional rights of the several States depend on, and are terminated by, a race of diligence." 18 A weighing of "governmental interests" would only give precarious guidance.18 Had Balk's claim against Harris been garnished in Canada rather than in Maryland, the garnishment proceedings would not have been entitled to full faith and credit in North Carolina, and Harris could constitutionally be held liable to pay his debt twice. It is for this reason that jurisdiction over nonresident aliens based on garnishment and constructive service has repeatedly been denied though the garnishee was properly before the court.::o Moreover, there is some possibility that the Supreme Court might find a violation of due process in the assertion of such jurisdiction. For, in a related case involving a claim of the United States to bearer bonds owned by an enemy alien and located abroad, the Court upheld jurisdiction in part on the ground that defendant debtor corporations would be protected against any concurrent liability that might be imposable by a foreign court on it different jurisdictional theory, by their "right to recoup from the United States!' ~1 The Court might hold
18. Frnnkfurter. J., dissenting, in Stnndard 011 Co. v. ~ew Jersey, 3U U.S. 428, 444, it S.Ct. 8~, 831 t 1051), infm § 40 note 13. But see Riesenfeld, supm note I, at Ob'2. 19. Cr. Holt, The Federnl Interpleader Act and ContllCt of Luws In Garnishment, 4 U.Chl.L.Rev. 403, 421, 423, 4..9'f (1931). 20. Weitzel v. Weitzel, 27 Ariz. 111, 230 P. 1106 (1924) (possible enforcement in both Arizona nnd lIexico); Parker, Peebles &; Knox v. ~ntional Fire Ins. Co., 111 Conn. 383, 150 A. 313 (1980) (prior reco\"ery or debt In Haiti). See also Employers Liability A.ssurance Co. v. Sedgwick, Colllns & Co., (1027) A.C. 05 (possible enforcement in both England and Russia); Sktb's Abaco, etc. v. Ardeshlr B. CursetJee & SOns, Ltd., 133 F.Supp. 465 (S.D.N.Y.1!>5.'J) (under Admiralty Rule 44); and, iu general. Goodrich 181; Swenson, supra note 15, nt 631; Lindeteves~. V. ,'. l[eillnk, H.R. (Neth.Sup.Ct.) 11.26, 1054, X.J.10i';;, no. 008, DJ.V., oJ: ~ed.Tijdschr.lnt.Recht 96 (l05n: ~ote, 40 Yale L.J. 139 (1030); an no., 69 A.L.R.

differently in cases where the debtor lacks such protection, particularly in view of the due process test against "double escheat." ~t6 In Harris v. Balk (supra) the local creditor (Epstein) succeeded in reaching an interest (Balk's claim against Harris) admittedly owned by his nonresident debtor (Balk) . However, "the power of the State to proceed against the property of an absent defendant is the same whether the obligation sought to be enforced is an admitted indebtedness or a contested claim."::-': All that seems needed is an effective "seizure" of a res by garnishment, injunction or otherwise.:3 Yet, the Supreme Court of the United States has declined to disturb a holding of the California high court, which, even in the absence of such seizure, found the basis of quasi in rem jurisdiction in "the general principles governing jurisdiction over persons and property!':4 Seeking support in the development of the International Shoe (§ 33) and Pennoyer doctrines (§ § Zl f.), the court sustained California's quasi-in-rem jurisdiction by virtue of her "multiple contacts" with the case.::3 This ~pproach would preclude decisiOns which persist in assigning. "fictional situs to intangibles." ::6
2\ a.

I 1





t .

Once the rationale of presumed notification had failed (§ 29), a "power" rationale (§ 25) appeared as the;only justification for failing to require a contact of the forum with the case in the law of jurisdiction quasi-in-rem. Even this power rationale has proved wholly fictitious in cases involving intangibles. What does it mean to attribute to a state "power" over a defendant whose only contact with that state consists of a trip to that state by his alleged debtor? It has been suggested that "perhaps the only fair procedure would be to require proceedings in personam against both the creditor and debtor, first to establish a claim against the creditor and then to permit its satisfaction upon establishment of the creditor's claim against the debtor.":1 It may well be that further extension of the rules governing jurisdiction in personam, with their increasing emphasis upon the court's contact with the case (§§ 27 f.), will significantly reduce the need for that legal hybrid, jurisdiction quasi-in-rem.28
corporation, defendants' shnres in which had been previously seized.

-§ 30. The "transient rule" and its rationale. According to the transient rule, as generally stated, anyone "personally present" in a state is subject to its "jurisdiction," "whether he is permanently or only temporarily there," 1 and, in "transitory actions" without regard to the contacts of that state with either case or parties. The attempt will be made to show that this formulation of the rule is inadequate in practice as well as in the light of historical and theoretical analysis. This is so in view of a growing number of "exceptions" (§ 31) and the decisive modification of the rule by what are fast becoming jurisdictional rules of discretionary (§ 34 fl.) and mandatory (§ 39 fI.) dismissal.
In an early case the rule was criticized by a dissenting judge as compelling the traveller "to run the gauntlet of litigation under threat of snap judgments," and thus offering "premiums to scavengers of sham and stale claims at every center of travel." ~ Leading writers have pointed out that the rule is unfair when resulting in a trial of the suit in a state "in which no part of the operative facts occurred and in which neither of -the parties lives;" 3 as "the defendant may be .. called upon to defend in a place with which he is unfamiliar," -& and the forum may not be "in a favorable position to deal intelligently either with the facts or with tne law." 5 To Minor, the best-known text writer in the period between Story and Beale, the rule permitting an administrator to sue a debtor transiently present in the state of his appointI. Rest. §§ 77-70.

Stumberg 109.

See intra § 49 notes 16, 17.

Pennington v. Fourth Xat. Bank of Cincinnati. 243 U.S. 260, 2i1, 3T S.Ct. 282, 283 (1011). Id. at :!-l3 U.S. 272, 37 S.Ct. 283.

23. 24.

Atkinson v. Superior Court, 49 Ca1.2d 338, 345, 316 P.2d 060, OM (195n, cert. den. 35T U.S. 569, is S.Ct. 1381 (1058) (Traynor, J.). "In such a case the distinction between in rem and in personam , becomes dim. the requirements or 'fair play and substantIal justice' cut across the distinction and go beyond it." Letlar 42. Id. at 966. See also Id. at 064, for a review of the cnse law. On the impact of recent developments in the law of interpleader, see Cheatham Casebook 205f. -




600. 21. Cities Service Co. v. lIcGrath, 342 U.S. 330. 3M!., 72 S.Ct. 334, 33T (1952). See intra § 49 note 16.

atkinson v. Superior Court. supra note 24, at 316 P.2d 024. See e. g. Union Chemical & lIateria1s Corp. V. Cannon. Storey - , 148 A.2d 348 (DeLlO5O), holdIng "with some reluctance" quasi. in rem jurisdiction against nonresident shareholders extinguished by merger of the plaintiff

28. A significant esample or such a Ile\'elopment Is tbe law of jurisdiction in state intet'fl!t'tlller actions. Chafee. Interstate Interpleader, :33 Yule L.J. 1185 11024). .:\. state compact. still lacking con~resslonal approval. hIlS been adhered to by severn I states. ~.Y.Ci\".Pr. .Act § 2S'i (1061 Supp.); l[e.Re\".Stat. Co 13.1-.:\. (1954, Supp.19:)O); ~.H.Rev.StaU.nn. 2.\: 41a (Supp.l{)60); Pn.Pnrclon,'s ~tnt.AIln. tit. 12, § u02 (SuPP.1960). Cf. X.Y.Jud.Counc., 20th .Ann. Rep. 267ft'. (1054); Jones. Pitfalls In Opening or the ~ew York Interpleader Compact to Foreign .-\.dherents, A.. B. A. Proceedings. Sec.lnt.Comp.L. 1951-1058. 27ft'.; Zimmerman, Wendell nnd Heller, Effectl\"e Interpleader ..'\"'ia Interstate Compacts, 55 Col.L.Rev. 56 (1955). -rhis compact. In elYect. seeks to achieve nationwide, and Indeed ,,·orldwlde. ser\,,Ice on the model of the Federnl Interpleader Act. See 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1307, 2361, enacted in \"Iew of Xew York Ufe Ins. CO. V. Dunlevy, 241 U.S. 518, 36 S.Ct. 613 (1016), supra note 6. Concerning the present authority of that case, see atkinson v. Superior Coort, supra note 6; Comment, 7 Buff.L.Rev. 279 (1058). See also Reeves, Adverse Claims by ~onresldents--The Search for Jurisdiction, 32 St. John's L.Rev. 229 (1958); Holt, The Federal Interpleader act and Conflict of Laws in Garnishment, 4 U.ChLL.Rev. 403 (1938).

Hammersley, J., dissenting In Fisher
Ui (;onll. 01, 34 A. 714, 118, i20 US!')5).



3. Cook 100. 4. Stumberg 73, n. 23. See also Ross, The ShIfting Basis of Jurisdiction. 17 lIinu.L.Rev. 146, 150 (1032); Rheinstcin, Book Review. 41 lIlch.L.Rev. 83, 01 - (1942) ("Irrational rules of jurisdiction"). 5. Dodd, Jurisdiction in Personal Actions, 23 IlLL. Rev. 421, 438 (1!)20).



Ch. 1

§ 30

ment, is "closer to robbery than to justice"; 6 and another author can find "nothing so irrational as the doctrine of local and transitory actions conventionally applied in the interstate field." '% llistory. Efforts for judicial and legislative reform have been decisively impeded by the assumption that this rule is of ancient common law origin. s It is submitted that this assumption is probably erroneous; as erroneous as the assumption of an ancient source of the counterpart of the rule, i. e. the requirement of intrastate personal service (§ 27). Both in England and in the United States the theory of the transient rule postulating sufficiency of intrastate personal service, is usually identified with the concept of "transitory actions" which are said to follow the defendant wherever he may be "found." But this identification seems to be of very recent origin. Moreover, as will be shown presently, the history of transitory actions, as that of a venue concept dating back to the sixteenth century,9 proves that a contact of the

forum with the case, typically absent in the modem transient jurisdiction, was typically present in such actions. to Most, if not all, references to transitory actions in cases and texts 11 ultimately go back to Blackstone's Commentaries. Here we learn that in such actions, "for injuries that might have happened anywhere, as debt. detinue, slander and the like, the plaintiff may declare in what county he pleases, and then the trial must be in that county in which the declaration is had." IS Even as to this intrastate venue, however, courts have, through all the procedural vagaries of the centuries, given decisive weight to their contact with the case. Originally all actions were "local" in the sense that they had to be brought at a place closely connected with the cause of action "because the jury was to come from where the fact was committed." 13 While as to
alleged to have beetl t&ken were "things tl'ansltor)". and also the tnktng of them"; Colllns v. Sutton, 1 Lev. 149. S3 Eng.Rep. 342, 343 (1665). upholding the plaintiff's demurrer to defendant's plea to "transitory mntters;" and Anon.. 11 lIod. 51, '52, 88 Eng. Rep. SiS (li06) declaring transitory an undated bond.
10. Kuhn. Local nnd Transitory Actions In Prtvnte International Law, 66 U.Pa.L.Rev. 301 (10"..8). Cheatham Casebook 05 n. 2 disposes of my suggestion ns "unsound on historical grounds," becouse "the basic way that English courts got jurisdiction over a defendant was by arresting blm." This seems to have heen true also in early American low. Blume, Ci\"il Procedure on the American Frontier. 56 lIlch.L.Rev. 161, 175, 107, 210 (195i'). But tloes this fnct prove that the defendant's nrrest was sutficient to convey jurisdiction without more?
II. Of. Streeter, Coon.Superior Court 1772-1ii3, p. 124; Genin \". Grier, 15 Ohio 210 (1840); Boote, An Historical Trentise of an Action or Suit Dt Law (li05) Oi; 1 Pame and Duer's Practice (1830) 88.

lUnor, Conflict of Laws (100l) 285.

FI)Rter. Plnce of Trial-Interstate Appllentlon of lntmstate }lethods or Adjustment. 44 Hnrv.LoRev. -lI, 48 (1030). See also Foster. Place of Trlnlln CivIl .\ctlons, 43 Hllrv.L.Rev. 121i, 122'2 (1030): Falconbrldge. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual lleetlng of the Conference of Commissioners on Uniformity of Legislation in Canada (1003) 83, quoted by nead. Recognltlon and Enforcement of Foreign .Tutlgmems (1038) 151. Transient jurisdiction acquired by a state on the basis of service of process Iluring nn interstate flight through its airspace has supplied final proof of the absurdity of the rule. Grace v. lIncArthnr, 1'i0 F.Supp. 442 (E.D.Ark. 1I):jO). See ~ote, 12 Vand.L.Rev. 1395 (1059). 8. See lUuor. Confilct of Lnws (l00i) 185; Dodd, Juri~llIctlon In Personnl A.ctions, 23 1ll.L.Rev. 4!!7, ..as (102!» (no authority); Stumberg;2; Goodrich 189; LeUar, _\l'kunsllS Law of Condlct of La\VS (1988) 101 (two cnses !l'ODl 187:! (lnd 1805): Burdick. Service as II Requirement of Due Process In Actions in PersoutUl1, :!O lllch.L.Rcv. 4-"2, 425 (1022) (one unrelated pa...sage from Blackstone). The American Law In- stitute. Commentaries on Condlct of Laws, Restntement No. 2 (lO:!6) 10 linda .. little authority on this pro,)osltlon." See -SChlesinger, supra note i, at

JURISDICTION IN PERSONAM to be increasingly neglected in a judicial land this venue has remained at the situs, practice generally satisfied with some ele"transitory" actions concerning chattels were ment of the cause of action having occurred "to follow the defendant wherever he could in the forum,!! courts increasingly began to be found." 1" But even here the plaintiff was stress their power to change the venue chosen "supposed to lay it where the Action acby the plaintlff contrary to the statute.:l3 crued," and only "in case the defendant fled And when in 1705 a statute in effect permitfrom that place, the plaintiff had liberty to ted the plaintiff to lay his transitory actions try his Ac~on in the County wherein the dein any county, U courts began to grant mofendant was summoned." 15 The subsequent tions for such changes of venue to the place history is characterized by judicial and legisof the cause of action as "motions of lative endeavors to find an equitable balance in the desire to protect both the plaintiff course." 25 Additional limitations on the against elusive defendants and the defendant plaintiff's choice were caused by statutes and against the whim of vindictive plaintiffs. city liberties prohibiting plaintiffs to sue Thus, a growing practice of permitting the their compatriOts and co-citizens outside 26 plaintiff to sue at places 'other than that of their jurisdiction. the cause of action,16 was, in 1389, countered The same results have obtained in England by a statute compelling the plaintiff to com- in cases involving foreign causes of action mence writs of account and debt in the coun- ever since English courts have begun to adty where the contract had been made. l1 And judicate such cases. True, when foreign when at the end of the sixteenth century vio- causes of action became triable in England, lation of venue requirements tended to be- this triability was in general limited to come non-traversable,18 this rule failed to'be transitory actions as to which it was permisapplied in inferior courts which continued to sible to lay a fictitious venue in England.2'f enforce the old venue rule.19 Similarly, a But an analysis of the case law shows that statute of 1665 which limited stays and re- those c8Ses in which English courts in fact versals of jury verdicts on grounds of lack of assumed jurisdiction had substantial domesvenue,20 was, at least for some time, interpret- tic contacts or were such that the plaintiff ed as preserving the venue requirement by could not expect justice elsewhere.28 In the speaking of the "proper county." U Finally typical case suit would be brought against a when the statutory venue requirement came colonial officer of the Crown as to whom both


14. Boote, op. cit. supra note 11, at 07•

12. Blackstone. Commentaries on tbe Laws of England (Jones ed.1016), Book Ill, p. 294.

9. Cf. Queen v. Lord '·nux, 1 Leon 31,38, i4 Eng.Rep. a.1. :16 (Exch.mS6) declaring the county non·trnveniuble upon a bill of intrusion because the things

Boote. op.. clt.. supra note 11, at 07. See n1so Sack, Condlct of Laws in the History of the English Lnw, 3 Law: A Century of Progress, 1835-1035,342, ~i (103i); Wicker, Tbe Development of the Distinction between Locul nnd Transitory Actions, -! Tenn.Lor-ev. ;j5, 61 (1926); Foster. supra note 1; and in Jreneral Anno., 30 A.L.R.2d 1210 i infra I 39 notes Iff.


22. Bulwer's Case. supra note 16. See also Sack. :mprn note 1!l. at notes 107. 108 (on the development 15. Ibid. (ltnllcs in original). See In general Bll1~e, of assumpsit): Boote, op. cit. supra note 11, at os. Place of Trial of CivU Cases, 48 lUch.L.Rev. I, 0, 12 (1949). 23. Sack, suprn note 13, at 368. 16. See Bulwer's Case, 7 Co.Rep. 1. 3, 77 Eng.Rep.· . 411, 415 (1586). The rntlonale used was that debts 24. 4 & 5 Ann., c. 16, § 6 (1705). :\nd contracts are "nuUlus loci." • . . 25. Boote, op. cit. supra. note 11, .at OS.. Cf. Tidd, 17. 6 Rich II. c. 2 (1382). Of: Y.B.Pasch., 21 Edw. Forms of Practical Proceedings In the Courts of IV, pL 10, to 26 (1482). i;. King's Bench, Common Plens, nntl Exchequer of 18. See e. g. Queen v. Lord Vaux and others, 1 Leon. Pleas (6th ed. 1824) 262; Holmes v. Wainwright. S 8i, io4 Eng.Rep. 35 (1586); Sack, supra note 13, at East 320. 330.102 Eng.Rep. 624 (1803). 26. cr. Jacob's City-Liberties (1732) 147 i Sack, supra n. 188. note 13, at 346 n. 46. 19. cr. cases cited Sack, supra note 13. at n. 189. 20. 16 & 17 Car. II, c. 8, I 1 (1666); 22 5; 23 Cnr. II, 27. See Sack, supra note 13. nt 370, n. 25. c.4 (1671). 28. For the development of this rationale (from In21. The BaiUtf, etc.. of Litchfield v. Slater, WUles ternational to individual reprisals) see Sack, supra 432, -185, 436, 125 Eng.Rep. 1253, 1255, l256 (1743) i note 13. at 352. Sack, supra note 13, at 367.





§ 31


these tests would apply.29 And, we might ground, and perhaps on the condition,lG that, add, where jurisdiction was assumed against "if the creditor cannot take him here, he may a mere transient, an English court would ex- lose his chance of securing his debt." 30 In ercise its discretion in protecting him against almost all other cases in which jurisdiction harassment.3o In view of the scarce case was purportedly based on transient service law,31 the apparently unanimous attitude of alone, the forum had in fact other contacts English writers on the subject opposed to the with the case or the parties. Either the recognition of jurisdiction based on mere cause of action had arisen within the state presence,38 probably represents the law in and was thus subject to domestic law;3T or the Engiand today. Scottish doctrine has al- plaintiff was entitled to the protection of the ways insisted that something more is needed forum and his interest in speedy justice was for personal jurisdiction than "mere tran- deemed to outweigh the transient defendant's sient presence." 33 preference for his own forum. 38 Why should, the court would ask itself, "our citizens be obNotwithstanding dogmatic generalizations, American courts have, except for one or two liged to go into a foreign jurisdiction in purtypical situations, hardly ever in fact held suit of their debtors, when those debtors are transient service generally sufficient as here 1" 39 But even in these cases courts apsuch.l-4 The one situation in which they have parently had occasion only rarely to proceed apparently always deemed personal service upon mere transient service, since most statthe sole basis for their jurisdiction, is the utes, yet unrestricted by constitutional de.suit against a transient alien; this on the mand, quite liberally permitted suits against absent defendants, while courts felt free to deny jurisdiction in the proper case. Forum 29. ct. ltostyn 'I. Fnbrigas. 1 Cowp. 161. 1i2. !)8 Eng. Rep. 1001. 1027 (17i4); Untael v. Verelst. !! \V.Black cO'n:uen~to employ an unusual but, I be!)83.06 Eng.Rep. aiD (1174): f.ord BellllDlont's Cnse, 2 Snlk. 626, 91 Eng.Rep. l)2D (1700).

Heve, helpful phrase-was, in this sense the basis of all personal jurisdiction.» '


As late as 1814, the Supreme Court of pennsylvania declared it "the most important principle of all municipal law of AngloSaxon origin, that a man shall only be liable to be called on to answer for civil wrongs in the forum of his home, and the tribunal of his vicinage • . .".u While this may well have been an overstatement in the light of earlier trends towards a broader rule, the transient rule in its present generality is probably not much older than the 1877 decision of the U. S. Supreme Court in Pennoyer v. Neff..q In that case all statutes basing ju_ risdiction over nonresident defendants on less than personal service within the state were The privilege has been extended to proheld unconstitutional. Only when this per- ceedings other than court proceedings,5 but sonal service, hitherto a hannless adjunct of mere conferences with counsel 6 or extra-juconvenient jurisdiction, thus came to be required for the establishment of personal ju- J. Y.B. 20 Henry VI. 10. risdiction "over" nonresident defendants (§ 2. l~'!l'JlhY \'. Dantowitz. 142 Conn. 320. 114 A.2d 194 27) did such service probably also become Il~)o)); Uhoads v. Dt>nnis. 115 Y.E.'2d iOB (Ohio A

§ 31. Exception: Immunity. At least since the time of Henry VI, 1 nonresident witnesses and parties to a court action have been held immune against service of process whUe a~ending, or traveling to and from a court trl~. Apparently almost all states will recogmze a defendant's or witness' immunity even when merely passing through.! But a subs~tial minority of states refuse such imm~t: to anyone entering the state as a plamtiif or otherwise as the moving party,:J on ~e grO~d that he himself has voluntarily subjected himself to the jurisdiction-though the United States Supreme Court would protect plaintiffs because "Courts of justice ought everywhere to be open." -&

Fnlconol'idge 612tr. 31. Cf. Cnrrick v. Hancock. [l895J 12 T.L.R. 59. discounted by Rend, Recognition and Entorcement of Foreign Judgments 1-19 (Ul:i8) as n deeislon of n Single Judge nnd the only direct English authority. One might add that In thnt case detendant actunlly appeared and defended. But see Dicey's Conflict of Laws (ith ed. 1058) liT (''weighty dicta"). For analysis of £4imilnr tHcta In Commonwealtb decisions. see Cowen, A BrItish View, 0 J.Pub.L. 303, 305-301 (1060). Westlake. Prlvate International Law (1858) 102; , Obeshlre 108; Read, op. cit. supra note 31. nt 150. :ice lllSo ~ote, Britisb Precedents tor Due Process . Limitations in Personal Jurisdiction, 48 Col.L.Rev. 605 ll048): Dicey, op. cit. supra note 31, at 1030. Cowen; supra note 31, wblle agreeing with the nuthor concerning the Inadequacy of the transient rule. " mnintnins tbat this rule "is the iaw of England and other Brltlsh jurisdIctions." Id. at 312. But see Ehrenzweig In Reply, Id. at 328, 333-334. 33: Gibbs. The International Law of Jurisdiction (1026) 42. See nlso id., nt 59 as to the requirement :. of personal service. 34. See in general Ehrenz\velg, The Transient Rule . of Pel'Sona! Jurisdlctlon: The "Power" Myth nnd . Forum Conveniens, 65 Yale L.l. 280, 303fl'. (1056).



See e. g. Rea \'. Harden. 3 )1888. ~4 (1807). In Cannda transient jurisdiction over aliens has been nssumed where required for the plaintiff's protec<tion, as in a case where n (U. S.) allen resided in 1\ territory \vithout civil courts so tbat the forum Invoked was "the nen:cst spot where the pl4intUr can litigate his rights." llacnulay y. O'Brien, 5 B.O. n. 510. 515 (1891). Concerning Australian lnw see Cook 06. See also Read, op. cit., supra note 31, at' 131; infra § 35 note -t. 36. Barrell v. Benjamin. 15 lIass. 354. 358 (1810). Even then earlier judlcln1 practice, tollowing International usuge, perhaps limited jurisdiction over the· defendant "to matters relating to his acts and conduct while within that territory." Hammersley,. J., supra note 2, relying on '2 Philllmore, International Ln\v (3d ed. 1882) 4; Story f 613. In admiralty, transient jurisdiction Is typically coincident with the presence of the defendant's vessel See In ;eneral Ehrenzweig, Frnglstas and Ylannopoulos, AmerIcan·Greek Private International Law (1051) 33ft'.,. 40tI'. .

generally gu[ficient for this purpose. With the gradual breakdown of the requirement of personal servicA the transient rule too .., , , ~ ~ely gradually to yield to a law of juris_ dictio better ,.J ... ,..... n aUJ~l.ed to modern needs.43
40. For a fuller development of this thesis, see EhrenZWeig, supra note 34.

.~!}..!): l(~ller \'. lhiller,

I,,). ~jR P._d 187 (If}fj3): :-l.Y.2d liR :V.Y.S.2d 331. 151 Y.E.!!d But see e. g. CnsRem v. Galvin. 158 IlL 30, 41

:~l I.~ (1!~~6);_ r.nch~rite


141 Cnl.App.2d i22, ~07 ~ v. District Court. i4 Idnh~ Thermoid Co v Fabel .f-

Rsa (lOOm NA

1081 (181)5): Goade v. Vollratb, 81 F.Supp. 971 073 (W.D.l(o.lD48). As to defendants In criminal ' see Anno.• 20 A.r•. R'!?d 163. For time IlmltatjO~ e. g. Commonwealtb v. Dulles, 181 Pu.Super: '4S: 124 A.!!d 128 (1f)"'..o). • -

37. Se e.. ,g. Bissell v. Briggs, 9 lIass. 462 (1813); Hart v. Granger, 1 Conn. 154 (1814). 38. See e. g. Barrell v. Benjamin, 15 llass. 354, 358 . (1819) (plaintiff n U. S. citizen). See also infra § 35-.. note 2239•. See e. g. BIsbop v. VOBe, 2T Conn. 1 (1833).

Coleman's Appenl, is Pu. 441, 458 (l8i4). Not only did the writer of n textbook written In 1880 [1 Wells, Jurisdiction of Courts (lSSO) iOJ quote this statement with appnrent approvlll but he also' expressed his npproval of a vigorous dissent from an 1865 decision of 11 New York court holding servIce Within the state sutllcient to establlsh JurisdJctlon in a sUit between nonresidents for n tort COmmitted outside the stote. Id. Ilt i6. The dlssenting jUdge, apparently on a theory of lack of jurisdiction Would have declined to Proceed "agnlnst the cltize~ ~r an~,ther foreign state, whUe seeking our basplallty• Latourette (N.Y.Sup.Ct. 1865). v. Clarke, 4G Barb. 327' 331, 333 1

3~., \r~~kOV !. Snperior Court, 40 Cal.2d 280, 253 P. _d ..;a (1f)lj3): Slosberg' v. lIun. Court, 101 Cal..Ap~ 2d 238. !!25 P.2d 312 (1900); Rizo v. Burrnet. 23 ~
137, 202 P. 234 (19'11).


Ste~\'art v. 'Ramsay, 242 U.S. 128, 120, 37 S Ct. 44, 40> (1036). For n critical nnalYsis of the Court-s reasoning, see Keeft'e and Roscia, Immunity and Sentimentality. 32 Corn.L.Q. 411 (1947) See i era! the lIodel State Witness Immo~jty A:t,g:; U.L.A. (1057) 186; King, Immunity for Witnesses' An Inventory of Caveats, 40 A.B.A.l. 317 (1004): Comment, 31 Tex-L.Rev. 336 (1953). For an tension of the minority view to include Interested witnesses, see Comment, 48 CaUl.L.Rev. 887 (198p).


42. Penn01er v. Neif, 93 U.S. 114 (l877).




On-vers, Book Review, 41 Call1.L.Rey. 414, 696 ~959); Leflar, Book ReView, 13 Stant.L.Rev In 8 (1961); Scb1esinger, Methods of Progre~ wei onfllct of Laws, Some Comments on EbrenzJ b.~b:s Treatment of "Transient" Jur1sd1ctloD 9


Cowperthwalt v. Lamb, 373 Pn. 204, 95 A.2d lilt) (1953) (bureau of highwayS); llatthews v. Tufts. 81 N.Y. 568 (1882) (register In bankruptcy)' Roschynlalskl v. Hale, 201. F. 1017 (D.0.Neb.11)13) Cd osition before notary public). See also Oomm epImmunization of CongressiOnal Witnesses etc. ~~~ OhLL.Rey. 651 (19M); Anno., a:s. A.L.R.2d 1353. -



313, 311-321 (1960).


6~ Vaughn v. Boyd, 142 Gn. 280, 82 s.a 516 (1914"Brooks v. State ex reL Richards, 3 Boyce (26 DeL)



Ch. 1

;§ 31



be sufficient, and there is no agreement.as to the ·immunity of attorneys. 8 There are

the law on ·wbich the right depends. n u Whatever the original policy reasons for this rule may have been,u both Congress and the some indications that broad formulas may judiciary 14 have, over the last '150 years, inyield to a consideration of the facts of each creasingly taken account of a growing "chilly case, with particular stress upon a distinction feeling against sovereign immunity." 115 The betweE!n voluntary ,and involuntary appear- immunity of the several states, guaranteed ance. 9 Legislation has so far concentrated to them by the Eleventh Amendment, has upon providing immunity for defendants and undergone a similar development. ls witnesses in criminal actions. 10 Federal One of' the many legislative inroads is the courts, under 'the Erie doctrine, will follow right to sue the United States given by statthe rule prevailing in the state in which they ute to citizens of those countries which have sit. u granted a corresponding right to citizens of the United States.l'J Citizens of Argentina, Great Britain, Italy and' the ,Ph:ilippines, though for instance not those of Sweden,18
12. KawananRkoa T. Polyblank.205 U.S. 349, SISS, 27 S.et. 5-'»6. 52; (190;). See also United States v. Shaw, 309 C.s. 495, 501, 00 S.Ot. 059, 661 (1940). 13. Cf. Chief Justice Marshall's opinion In The E%chaDlte. 7 Cranch (11 U.8.) 116 (1812). 14. For a history of this de,\,clopment. Ree National City Bank of New York \'. llepubllc of Cblna. 348 U.S. 356, i:i S.Ct. 423 (]OG5). See alf;O Frankfuner, J .. dltUlt'ntln,: In Great Northern Life Ins. Co. T. llcnd. 3:!2 U.S. 47. 59, G4 S.CL Si3, 879 (]944): ll(!('Tt'S, I..t'\·lathan Bound-Sovcre1J:ll Immunity ill 'n llodem World. 43 Vn.L.Be\'. 529, 544 (1957); Comment, 24 L.ChLL.Be\·. 513 (l95i): Notes, 31 N.D. J.:I\\'yer 73 (10~ii): 40 lUnn.L.Re'·. 234 (1956); 30l ItcT.Dr.lnl. &: Dr.Comp. 10 (10tii). 15. National City Bank of New York Y. Republic of Cbina, supra note H, at 359. On tills "anachronistic sur\,l\'al of monarchical prl'\'lleJ::c," see also J.'rankfurter, J .. dissenting In Iiennecott Copper Corp. '\'. State Tax Comm'n. 327 U.S. 5i3, 580, 6G S. Ct. i4~, 748 (1946): and for an array of international autilorltr condemning ilDlDunlt3'. Rlwer SSi4(H. But lICe e. J:. Graham \'. Panama Canal Co., 139 F.Supp. 2il (D.C.Canal Zone 10U5).
16. See e. g. People v. Streeper, 12 Dl.2d 204,145 N.E. 2d 62ri (19n7). Concerning the Immunity Of territorial governments, see Crm \'. Government of Guam, 195 F.2d 414 (9th Cir. 1952). In general see James. Tort Liability of Governmental Units and thel!' Officers. 22 U.CbLL.ReT. 010 (1955): Ehrenzweig, Negligence Without Fault (1951) 241f.; Note, 40 Mlnn.L.Ret'. 234 (1956): Braband, LlabWty In Tort of the Go\,ernment and Its Employees: A Comparative Analysis wIth Emphasis on German Law, 33 N.Y.U.L.Re'\'. 18 (1958). 17. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2502. As to the right of foreign governments to sue, see supra 1.~8 note 218. Eterpen Financiera Socledad de ReponssbWdad Llmltada t'. United States, 180 F.2d 101 (Ct.Cl 1952): United States \'. O'Keefe, 11 Wall (78 U.S.)

dictal prosecution of one's interests,' may not

Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity the United· States may not be sued without its consent, presumably because there can be no right "against the authority that makes
I, 79 A. 700 (1911); Gerard \'. Superior Court, 91 Cal.App.2d 54!), 200 P.2d 109 (1949). See aIM Westtern States Refining Co. \'. Berl'3", (j Utah 2d,33G. 313 P.2d 480 (19a;) i Note. 50 Mlch.L.Bel'. 442 (1958). 7. cr. Franklin \'. Superior Court. P8 CnlApp.2d 292. 220 P.2d 8 (1o.lO) (recovery of child custody without litigation); Toupe Y. Strasser, 1]3 F.Supp. 2R9 (D.C. D.C.19U3) (congresslonnl bearing) i Anno., 113 A.L.n. 872. 8. cr. Lamb '\'. Schmitt. 285 U.S. 222. 52 S.Ct. 31; (1032); Pitman T. Cunnln~bam. 100 N.n. 41), 118 A. 2d 8S4 (1050). denying the prh'lIeJ:c: and III J:elleral Ra)', Prlvllelle of Non-l(esldent Attorne~"S from &!rvIce of Clv1l Process. Ii Ky.L.J. Ill; (192!I); AIIIIO •• 71 A.L.ll. 139H. Sl>(! alf;(, Zumste~ ,'. All1t'ricall Food Club, lOG Oblo SL 439, 143 N.E.2d iOl (111:;i). 9. '''Tl}e test Is ,,'hether the Immunltr ItfielC, If allowed, would so obstruct judicial adminlstrntlon in the very cause for the protection of which It is ill· voked as to justify withholdlnJ: It." Lamb \'. Schmitt, supra note 8, at 228. See also Murrnr \'. Murray, 216 Cal. 70i, 10 P.2d 741 (1932); State ex ret Slvnksty t'. Duffi('ld, 71 S.E.2d 113 (W.Ya.1052) (venue) i Keeffe and Itoseia. supra note 4. at 482ff. Concerning the constitutional prlYllege of 1e,:lslators see e. g. Long Y. Ansell, 293 U.S. 70, 55 S.CL 21 (1934) : of judges, Anno., 85 A.L.B. 1840. 184!!: and of public officers In general, Anno., 45 A.L.R.2d 1]00. cr. State v. Taran, 253 Minn. 158, 91 N.W.2d 444 (1958).

.have been permitted to sue the United States .underthis -provision. Some reciprocal treaties will have a similar e1fect.19 At all times foreign sovereigns have been similarly exempted from suit, 'subject to their consent to be sued and a withdnlwal of im. munity.~ In detennining the sovereignty of the defendant and 1:be extent·of the immunity, suggestions by the Department of State have been "accorded significant weight" by ,the Supreme Court;ll presumably in view of the "embarrassing consequences which judi· ,cial rejection of a claim of sovereign immunity may have -on diplomatic relations." 22 How
1'78 (1870): Sanguinetti T. United States, 83 'Ct.Cl. 1 (1936) i Marcos Y. United States. 102 F.Supp. 547 (Ct.Cl.1052), overruled in other respect, Companla Maritima v. United States, 145 F.Supp. 035 (CLCl. '1956): Aktlebolft~ct Imo-Indllstri T. United States, 54 F.Supp. 844 (CLCL1944). See also for D. similar provision in the Puhllc Vessels-·Act.·4{; U.S.C.A. -. '785, Maiorino v. United States, III F.Supp. 817 (S.D. N.Y.1902) (no reciproclty with ltaly).•Countries incorporated by Russia offer special :pmblems. 'Zal-cman1s Y. United States, 149, ·~.Supp. 100 ,(et,;Cl. 1957), cerL den. 362 U.S. 917,:~ s.Ct.~:'(l9(JO). 'Where the plalntiff ·has ~doned ~egiance to such a country, tilC reciprocity requirement seems to call for judicial modificat!ioD. " . '19. Nicolas Eustathlou &: Co. Y. DJiJted States, 15411'. Supp.515 (E.D.Va.1llS7) (Greece)., 20. Tbe Exchan~c, supra note IS,. at 140. 'See Comments. 25 U.Chi.L.ReT. 170 (1057): '03 Talc L.J. ll48 (1954). See also BalJintooln ,.. Nlzam of Byderabad, [l95i] 3 W.L.B. 8S4 (Bouse of Lords); Lauterpacbt, [1958] Cnmb.L.J. 3 (1958) i Hendry, 86 Can.B.Rev. 14G (1958) i Mann, 40 Orotius Soc. 25 (1955)•.

far public corporations, and other 'govem'mental instrumentalities partake of the immunity of their governments remains doubtful. n Immunity will be considered waived if the foreign sovereign has itself brought suit in the United States and thus'''wants our law, like any other litigant." U' A counterclaim will be allowed without regard to the subject matter of the suit, if ''the ,ultimate thrust of the consiqeration of fair dealing allows a setoff . . . "26' ' The various types of diplomatic immunity are dealt with in public mternational law,lo And such immunities as result from -the lack of passive procedural capacity (standing to be sued) are discussed' elsewhere in this treatise (§§ 21 ff.). Problems of family and charitable immunity are generally held to be
dleated One of Its Functions?, 40 Am.J.lnt.L. las (1946); Cardozo, Sovereign Immunitr: Tbe PlaintitT 'Deserves a Dar in Court, 67 Hnrv.L.Re\,. 808 (1004); Note, 97 U.Pa.L.Rel'. 79 (1948). 23. For a comprehensive analysis, see Comment. 2ti U.ChI.L.Re\·. 176 (1957). See also BnCCUR S. n. L. \'. Sen-iclo Nacional del Trigo, (1900) 3 W.LB. 94~ (CA.); Wedderhurn, G lnt. and' . Comp.L.Q. 2{)O (19!j7) ; Friedmann, Thc Public Corporation: A Comparnti'\'e Sympo,;ium (1954) lJ2 (Australia); OJ (Canada) ; 134 (France) ; 144 (Gennan,) : 171 (Great Britain); 222 (Israel): 262 (Italy) ; 31~ (South Africa): 336 (Sweden); 361 (United States): as:; (U. S. S. B.). Cr. Petty \'. TenneJISee-Missouri Brldlre Com'n, 359 U.S. 27:;. 79 S.Ct. 78G (1009). 24. National CIty Bank of New Tork T. Republic of China. 348 U.S. 356, 3G1, 75 S.CL 423, 42; (1005). 25. Id. at SGa, 429. Justices Reed. Burton nnd Clark dlSS4!nted from this decision as "unfair to our' for· eign friends and detrlmentnl to our own financial and mercantile Interests." Id. at Si2. To this effect Belgium Y. E. A. G. de Badts, Ned. Jur. 1923, 01S, Ann.Dig. of Pub.Int.L.Cas.1919-192!!, p. 129. But see also Hungarian People's Republic Y. Cecil As· sociates, 118 F.Supp. 954 (S.D.N.'I.l953): and in gen· eral Note, 71 L.Q.Re\'. S05 (1955). For a compara· tive analysts, see RJezler 88i1l. 26. See e. g. Areaya T. Paez, 145 F.Supp. 464 (S.D. N.Y.1956), 81rd 244 F.2d 958 (C.A.1957) i Groner, Amenabll1t:y of Foreign Consular Officlals to Ju· dicIal Process In the United States, 10 FecLB.J. 32 (1948) i Note, 82 N.D.Lawyer 530, (1957) i Rlezler 341-386. For a series of slgn11icant Italian dec::lsions in part involving Americans, see J. A. C. Smith, 4 lnt. and Comp.L.Q. 486 (19:'5). ConcernIng the United NatioDS, see Note, i] Harv.L.Rev. 1800 (1958).


In HarrIs 4: Company Advertising, Inc., v. Republic of Cuba, 127 So.2d OS; (Fla.App.1961), immunity wns denied with regard to "non-governmental func. tions." ,
21. National City Bank of New Tort v. Republlc of China, 348 U.S. 850, 860, "l5 S.Ot. 423, 427 (1955). Bee also Rich v. Navlera Vacuba S. A.. 295 F.2d 24, 26 (4th Clr. 1961). But ef. Stepben '\'. Zlvnostenska Banka, Nat. Corp.. 222 N.Y.S.2d 128 (App.Dlv.l00l); Republic of Cuba Y. Arcade Building of Savannah, Inc., 123 S.E.2d 4M (Oa.l001). 22, National City Bank ot New York T. Republic of China. 348 U.S. 356, 361, 75 S.Ot 423, 427 (1955). See also Mexico v. Hoffman, 324 U.S. 80, 65 S.et. 530 (1945): Ex parte Peru, 318 U.S. 5i8, 63 S.Ct. 793 (1942); New York and Cuba lIall Steamship Co: v. Virginia CIty Victory, 182 F.Supp. 684 (S.D.N.Y.1953). Concerning tb1s judicial "abdication" see e. g. Jessop, Bas the Supreme Court All-

ct. The Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance ot Witnesses from without a State in Criminal Pro-

ceedings, 9 U.L.A. (1957) § 4, p. 86, and Its Interpretation In Davis v. Backney, 19(} Va. 651,85 S.E. 2d 245 (1955) (Inclusion In the prl'\'1Iege, of automobile u~d to attend tria}). See New York Y. O'Neill, 859 U.S. I, 79 S.CL 504 (1959).

:11. Goade Y. Vollrath, 81 F.Supp. 971, 9i3 (W.n.Mo. 1948). See supra J 8 note 2.




Ch. 1

§ 33



But abuse of the process of extradition for of a substantive rather than a procedural nathe purpose of making the defendant subject ture and thus subject to choice of law,s'J .to personal service within the state is probab-though they are often, not too happily, ly equivalent to fraud." And so is the use of phrased in jurisdictional language.!:8 extra-legal force. 5 § 32. Exception: Fraud and force. A Where the exercise of jurisdiction by virperson brought into the state by fraud, ex.. tue of mere transient service would impose erted either directly or indirectly, may not hardship upon the defendant for other reabe subjected to the state's jurisdiction by per.. sons, the court may decline jurisdiction in sonal service.1 This probably does not hold its discretion under the doctrine of forum non true in the case of fraud committed by a conveniens (§§ 34 fl.). This doctrine will 3 third party,2 except an agent of the plaintiff. also have to re-establish the balance where the progressive breakdown of the Pennoyer 27. See infra § 221. rule (§ 27) has unduly expanded a· personal 28. See Prahl v. Prahl, :1015 llass. 483, 140 N.E.2d 480 jurisdiction based on less than personal serv(tD5i'). See also supra § 11. ice within the state.s

(§ 25) t the of the two subjects has been widely different. True, questions of proper service ,.upon foreign corporations have frequently arisen and offered prob-lems other than those concerning individuals.: Thus, service of process has been struck down upon corporate officers only temporarily present 3 or merely residing, rather than officially active,' within the state.s The peculiarity of the corporate structure has also posed problems in this re.. spect concerning an agent's authority to ra.. ceive process,s or the multiple domiciles of multiply incorporated associations. T But the
sonnnt .Jnrlsdiction O\'er Xonresidents, 21 Knn.B. A.J. 269 (1053); Dodd, Jurisdiction In Personlll Ae-tions,23 IIl.L.Rev. 427 (1020): Xote. 16 G'.Chi.L.Rev. 523. 534 (1949). See nlso Ehrenzweig and llllis. Persom\l ~er"ice outside the ~tate: Penno),er \'. ~err in CnUfornin. 41 CnUf.L.Rev. 383 (1053). Concerning Internntionnl Shoe Co. v. Wnshington. :L.~ U.S. 310 (1045) which. though involving n corpom[ion, purports to establlsh 1\ jurisdlctionnl theory equnlly appllcable to indlvidWlls, see Infm notes 181f. 2. llethods provided for such service by statute or otherwise have been tested constltutIonnlly lIS to their aptitude for giving notice nnd providing an opportunity for defense. KnRSIIS City, Ft. S. &: )1. n. n. v. Daughtry, 138 U.S. 208. 11 S.Ct. 306 (1891); St. lInry's Franco-.c\.merlcnn Petroleum Co. v. West Virginia, 203 U.S. 183, 27 S.Ct. 132 (1006). 3. Jnmes-Dlckinson Farm lIortJ;ngl! Co. v. Hnrry,273 U.S. 110. 122. 41 S.Ct. 308. 309 (19271: Blnckbnme v. Homnsote Co., 2 A.D.2d 073, 15, ~.Y.S.2d 00 (1056); Rest. Second. Tent. Drnft No. 4 (1051) 5 89. 4. Riverside & Dan River Cotton lUlls v. lIenefee, 237 U.S. 189, 195, 3;) S.Ct. ;;;9, 581 (1915); Conley v. lInthieson Alknll Works. 100 U.S. 406, 411, 23 S.Ct. 7"..8, 129, 730 (1003).
5. See also Wagenberg v. Charleston Wood Products. Inc., 122 F.Supp. 145 (E.D.S.C.1054), upholding n statute authorizing constructive service on nonresident directors of· domestic corporatiOns in personnl nctions relating to corporate activity.
6. The agent nppointed by a foreign corporation seek-

" history

principal development in the law of personal jurisdiction over foreign corporations has concerned their presence in, or absence from the forum state. A brief historical summary of this development is needed for an analysis of existing law and of its possible direction.8



A corporation, an artificial person "created by the state of incorporation," was initially held incapable of U existence" outside the state of its creation,9 and was therefore amenable to suit only within that state (§ 24) [though being Permitted to bring suit elsewhere (§ 12)].
This "nonexistence" theory was, from the beginning, subjected to many exceptions based on real or presumed consent to the court's jurisdiction. Besides volu.qtary express consent,tO statutes requiring such consent or the appointment of agents to receive process 11 as a condition of conducting busi· ness within the state, have been upheld as a proper basis of such jurisdiction. Moreover, implied consent has been assumed IS in the case of corporations maintaining agents in
the Federal System (1053) 009ff.: Chenthnm Casebook D22ff.; Foley, Incorpomtlon, lIultIple IncorpomUon, and the Confiict of Laws, 42 Harv.L.Rey. 1516 (1020): Comment, 46 Ynle.L.J. 1370 (1037). As to multiple domiciles of individuals, see supra. § 29 note 10; infra § i2; § 145 note 4.
8. As to the history of federal venue and Jurisdiction, see Bart and Wechsler, op. cit. supra note 7, nt SOlff.; Notes. 56 Col.L.Rev. 394 (1956); 35 Col. L.Rev. 501 (1935).

notlen \". lliddonr. 404 Pa. 351. 171 ~.2d i60 (lOb'l): )lcClellnn \". Rowell. ~ lliss. 31a. 00 So. "d tJ;-,a CID~): Western StnteS Refining Co. v. Ber;y tS Utnh ~d 336. 313 P.2d 480 (lmm: Tickle v. B~tOn. 142 \V.Va. 188, 05 S.E.2d 427 (lO'-aS): l'n~inO v Patino 283 App.Dlv. S:ro. 120 N.Y.S.2d a33 (1M-I) : Blandin ·v. Ostrnnder, 239 F. iOO (2d Clr. 1017): Oklahoma' Industrinl Flnnnce Corp. v. Wallnce. 180 OkL 363, 00 P.2d 362 (1037); llnrgos v. lloroutlas. 184 ltd. 362. 40 A.2d 816 (1945); ::)iro v. American ~ ExPress Co.. 00 Conn. 05, 121 A. :!SO (1{)".!3). See also Guzzetta v. Guzzettn. 131 N.E.2d 410 (Oh~O' App.l956). app. dism. 106 Ohio St. 167. 140 N.E.2d 313 (lOOi) • Commerclnl llntunl Accident Co. v. Davis. 213' U.S. 245, 256, 29 S.Ot. 445. 448 (1000): Fitzgerald & ){nllory Const. Co. v. Fltzgernld, 131 U.S. OS. 105. 11 S.Ct. 36.38 (1890): Smi~h v. Bates.



§ 33. Personal jurisdiction over foreign corporations raises essentially the same prac.. tical questions as that over nonresident individuals (§§ 27 ft.), and these questions are fast approaching similar answers in both fields.1 But, as has been explained earlier

4. Klaiber ". Frank. 9 N.J". 1, 86 A.2d 679 (1952). See also Ex parte Dodd. 72 Idaho 351. 241 P.2d 359' :!83 S.W.2d 432 (Tex.Clv.APP.1955), rev d 00 oth:r 1ln-:.2)' COntl)ton v. Wilder, 40 Ohio St. 130 (1883); groond. Rntes ,'. Smith, 155 Tex. 443. ~ S. W._d 215 (1056). By the weight of nuthority n Judgment - Smith'v. Cannl Zone, 249 F. 273 (5th Clr. 1918): State ex rei. Stlpec v. Owen, 2n S. W.2d 864 (lto. so procured is considered ,",old "when nn attempt t;! APP.UJ54). But see Willard v. Zehr, 215 Ill. 148, made to enforce such judgment in another stnte. 74 N.E. 107 (1005): Jaster v. Currie. 108 U.S. 144, \Vyman v. Newhouse. 03 F.2d 313, 315 (2d Clr. 1037), 25 S.Ct. 6l~ (1005) (fmud); Infra 5 55 notes 2Off.; cert. den.• 303 U.S. 664. 58 S.Ot. 8-11 (1!l38): Ktniiler Comment, 5 Stan.LoRev. l.2D (1952); Anno., 65 A.L. v Frank. 0 N.J. 1, 86 A.2d 679 (1052): § 53. But see Rest. Judgments (1042) § 15, <.'omment b; Rest. t R. 1370. -8 ~mment d' Best. Second, Tent. Drnft No. ~ S. In re Edwnrds. 09 CaLApp. 541, 278 P. 910 (1929); ;195i) 64. In 'general see Note, 7 Duke L.J. 52 Stumberg 71. The opposite rule seems to obtain in ·(1957). criminal eases. See Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519, 72 S.Ct. 509 (1052); People v. Wilson, 106 OaLApp. 2. "Any more stringent rule would require n plain2d n6. i18, 236 P.2d 9, 10 (1951), cert. den. 342 U.S~ tUf before cnusing service of a writ upon a defend915. 72 S.Ct. 362 (1952); Anno.. 96 - AL.R. 982; nn~ whom be finds within the jurisdiction, to inScott. Criminal Jurisdiction of n State over a Dequire hoW he enme there, and to nscertnin thnt he fendant Based Upon Presence Secured by Force or had not been invited by other persons for some imFraud. 37 lt1nn.L.Rev. 91 (1953). Cf. Rest. Judgproper purpose:' Ex pnrte Taylor, 29 n.I. 129, ~ ments (1942), 115, comment c; Rest. I 78, comment . A- 553. 554 (1908) (fraud committed by the directors eo .04 of a corporation under receivership). See nlsO Jaster v.. Currie, 198 U.S. 144, 25 S.Ct. 614 (1905); Stumberg 75. But cf. Suhay v. Whiting, D6 N.E.2d 6. See Ehrenzweig; supra § 28 note 9b. . 609 (Ohio Com.PI.19GO): Rest. Second Tent. Draft I. Assimilation of Jurisdiction over Individuals to that over corporations has been repeatedly ndt'ocatNo. 4 (1957) 64. cd. Stumberg 09: Foster, Personal Jurlsd1ctlon 3. Tickle v: B~n, 142 W.Va. 188, 95 S.E.2d 421 Based on Local Causes ot Action, [1956] Wls.L:Rev. (1056); GOss v. Ball, 125 InUpp. 25, ll7 N.E.~ . 522 (1056): llcCarter, A. New Stntute for In Per649 (1052).

I I.

Bank of Augusta v. Earle. 13 Pet. (38 U.S.) 511
(183!); Pnul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. (is U.S.) 168 (1869).

ing to qunllfy in the forum state enn nnd need receive process only as to n enuse of nction connected with his business. ~ormann v. Burnham's Van Service, i3 So.2d 640 (La.App.l954) (statute). See also Holiday on Ice Shows v. Daneing Waters, 155 F.Supp. 763 (W.D.Wis.l05i) (mechnnic); Hyde v. Richard, 145 Conn. 24, 138 A.2d 527 (1958) (foreman).
7. See Jacobson v. N. Y., N~ H. &: H. R. 341 U.S. 000. 74 S.Ot. 4i4 (1954), atr'g 206 F.2d 153 (1st Clr. 1053); Hart nnd Wechsler, The Federal Courts and


Rest. § 90. ~elrbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 308 U.S. 165, 60 S.Ct. 153 (1030); Pennsylvrutia Fire Ins. Co. \'. Gold Issue lUning & lUlllng Co., 243 U.S. 03, 37 S.Ct. 344 (191i): Ex parte Sehollenberger, 96 U. S. 369 (1878). Ct. :Uerrill, Unconstitutional Conditions, 71 U.Pn.L.Rev. 879 (1929); Oppenheim, Unconstitutional Conditions and Stnte Powers, 26 Mich. LRev. 176 (1027); Farrier, Jurisdiction over Foreign CorporatloJUt, 11 lIlDn.L.Rev. 270 (1933). IL Conneetlcut Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Spratley, 172 U.S. 602. 19 S.Ct. 308 (1899): Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French, 18 Bow. (59 U,S.) ~ (1855).




.§ 33



the state for the conduct of their business.u ff.), in numerous 1nco~istent decisionsj11 and Finding implied consent in other situations '.induced a ·shift of emphasis to a .new due (§ 28) is a mere fiction U and should not:sup.. process test of fairness to the defendant port jurisdiction in the absence of another Since any such general test will, however, require modification and refinement, a derationale. tailed analysis of older formulas which conNevertheless, implied consent has always .-... -. tinue to govern the interpretation of state been relied on in order to hold foreign corpostatutes, remains indispensable. rations subject to the jmisdiction of any state .in which they·carry on actiVities sufficient to b. THE RULE: FRoM INTERNATIONAL constitute "dOing business" or tlpresence," 18 SHOE TO McGEE a test which is independent of the conditions "Fair pJayand substantial justiee"-Busifor the grant of a licenSe.to However, lack of ness activities and cause ·of action. The a more realistic rationale resulted here, as in shift was efiected by the important decision the law of jurisdiction over individUalS (§ § 28 in the International Shoe Co. case,t. where
13. "Implle(l" e<lllf:ent is limited to business transacted "'lthln tlle t:TRte. Simon T. Sonthem Rr. Co.. 2S0 U.S. 11;;. 35 S.Ct. ~ (lOU)): Old Wayne Mutual Life Ass'll ,'. McDonot1~b. 2<H C.S. S, 2i S.Ct. 23G (190i). Express cont:C11t to seM'ice on agents Is not so llmlte~. Pennsrh'anln Fire Ins. Co. ,'. Gold Issue MinlDg & Mllllng eo.. supra note 11.
14. OlberdlnJ! T. Illlnois Central n. Co., 34G U.S. 83S, 74 S.Ct. 83 (1953); Learned Band, J., in Smolik '". Phllndelllhin & Readln~ ConI Co.. 222 F. 148 (S.D. 1'.1:.191:;,; Stmnberg 00; Goodrich :!oorr. 15. This temllnology, first romblned "'Ith eont:ent Inngun~e (St. Clair T. Cox, lOG U.S. 300, 1 S.Ct. srri (1882)]. a;oon ClIme to replace It (111 re Hollorst. 150 U.S. 6iJ3. 14 H.Ct. 221 (1fUl31 J. As to the f!.('op<' of re, quired ncth'ltil's ~ C. J:. Groen ,'. Chlea~o, n. & Q. n. Co., 20;i U.S. t)8O, !!i s.et. !"dJr. (l00i); Internatlonnl Hnr\"l'Stt>r CO. T. K('nttlcky, 23-1 U.S. {ji9, 34 S.Ct. {).J..J (1D14) , pnl'JlOrting to di~tlnJrulsh I.JetWe<'1l "~on('ltl\tlon nlol1(,'· nnd sollclmtion com11ln(>(1 wUll other flctITlti<,s, See Rlso S<,hmldt ,'. E.c;qnire. Inc., 210 F.2d 90s (7th Clr. 1954). eerL den. 848 L.S. 810, i5 S.Ct. 31 (1054); Cannon T. Time. Inc.. 115 F.2d 423 (4th Clr. lf1.101: Superior Distrlbutln:: Corll. T. Hnr~rO\'c, 312 1'.211 893 (Ok!. 19ai) ; AJl~cbell Y. S:u·khehll. Hit F.Snprl. 44i (D.C.K.J.195U); Boston J'nekl ..!: )Iu(·hhlel·Y Co. T. Woodmlln Co.. 12f1 F.Supp. 5Gi (D.C.Mass.1054): A. and M. TrndinJ: Corp. T. Penn~l\'Rnln n. Co.. 13 N. J. [il0. 100 A.2d 513 (1D53): Anno., 18 A.Ln.2d lSi i Lacey, Solicitation as Doing Buslllel!I>-A Itc\'lew of Ne\\ York amI Feflernl Cases. 18 Ford.L.ne'·. 20! (1049); Comment, an K:r.LJ. ~i (1051): 4:; Mleb. L.Re\'". 218 (1946).

fendant's resident salesmen constituted "do.ing business" su1Jicient to warrant the infer6lce of presence. The U. S. SUpreme Court, a1firmlng this decision, substituted for this presence theory a new criterion. It found in the defendant's systematic and.oontinuous activities a sufficient contact with the state "to make it reasonable 'Blld just,It on fundamental considerations of "fair play and substantial justice," for that state to assume jurisdiction where the action was based on -obligations arising out of these activities. to Both requirements of "fair play" Wlder this decision, i. e., systematic and continuous activities within the state and a cause of action arising therefrom [both clearly remainders of the power ideology (§ 25)], have since been weakened. In analyzing the impact of this development on any particular case, it must be kept in mind, however, that, although the U. S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the states' constitutional authority, state Jaw applies and many states have not ye~ fully occupied their newly opened " en _ clave" 21 of power," while others have done so either by attempting to implement consti20. International Shoe Co. T. WasblnJrton, supra note IS, at 320. Thill test is not necessarJ1r. the Same as that employed concernlnl: the subjection of n fOreign corporation to taXation or ~Iation. lsn8cs. An Annlyslf: of DolnJr lJusiness, Z Co1.L. ReT. 1018, 10201 (lD!m); Doultlas, J" conc:urrln(: in TraTelers Healtb Ass'n ". VI1l!inia. 389 U.S. 643, 70 S.Ct. 92i (1949). See also e. 1:. Toedman T. 1"00ter Corp., 30S P.2(l 13R (Kan.l95i): Rt' YOlln~ T. Bragalinl, 8 K'r.2d 002, 148 N.E.2d 143 (1958); Ell L11l". &: Co. T. SaT-On-Drul:S. Inc., 800 U.S. 2;6, 289, S1 S.Ct.· 1316. 1824 (1001); Application of Ln BeUe Creolc Internationnl T. Att'y Gen., 10 K'I.2d 192, 170 N.E.2d 705 (1901).

tutional limits through specific legislation (infra) , or by simply' equating ,the '''doing business" test of the state rule with that of Due Process,t3 The question whether federal courts in diversity cases must follow the state rule remains unsettled:u Business without domeStic cause of aetion. The next step was taken in Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining CO.18 whiCh dispensed with the requirement of a cause of action arising out of activities within the state, in the presence of other "minimum contacts" such as the doing of business within the state. 26 The appoin1ment of an agent in compliance with a condition for admission has been held sufficient without regard to such business and even for the benefit of a nonresident plaintiff.2~ Moreover, in an increas· ing number of cases 'the statutory requirement of "doing business" has been held sat23. ComptJt'C e. J:. Benr,- n. Jahn & Son T. Superior Court, 49 C81.2d 855, 89..8 P.2d 43i (1958), .0111, Flsbcr Governor Co. T. Superior Court, 53 CaL2d :!2:!. 3-ii P.2d 1 (195,f)). per Trarnor, J. See ablll Relk ,'. Belk'~ Dcpnrrment STore of Columbia. S. C., Inc., 200 KC. 99, lOS S.E.2d 131 (1959).

the U. S. Supreme Court, while still purporting to preserve the power ideology, moved away from insistence upon "doing busi-

ness". 19
In a tax suit by the state of Washington against the International Shoe Co., a De]aware corporation, the supreme court of the state of Washington affirmed the lower court's jurisdiction on the ground that the continuous solicitation of orders by the de17.

Henrietta )1I11ln~ & Mllliog Co. ,", Johnson, 1&3 U.S. 221. 19 s.et. 402 (1800); Phllndelphla& ReDdin,: It. IL y. )lcKlbhlll. 243 U.S. 2M, 3j S.CL 2N) (]9ljJ; International HUM'ester Co. \'". Kentucky, 2.1-1 C.S. fjifl. 3-1 S.Ct. 944 (914): Coru:oUdated Textile Corp. ,'. Gre~orr. 2811 U.S. 8:;. ro S.Ot. 5-'>9 (1033). Cf. Comlllcnt. Thc Aftermnt11 of thc Nelrbo Coa;e. 42 IIl.L.Ile\'". ;80 (lD-iS): Farrier, Jurisdiction OTer ~'orelgn Corporations, Ii MinD.LRe\'". 2iO, 280

24. Cmnparr Jnftex Corp. T. Randolpb Mills. Inc., 282 F.2d 508 (2d Oir. 1000), per Clark. J. (admltt1n~ federal powcr), feWI Partin T. Michaels Art Uronzc Co.. suprn note 22. at n. 2 «lIctmn }l<'r J\ldJ:<' (iclOd· rlebl. and Judtro Y."'rlendly·s di~t:ent III Jaftex Corp.. supra at 510. See nlt:a Green, F(>(lpral JurisdlcrioJ1 In Pen:onam of Corporntions and Due PJ'O('eSS. H Vand.L.ReT. 00; (1001); Note, 74 Bnn'.L.lte\". 1662 (1961).

18. InternationAl Shoe Co. T. WashlnJrton. 326 U.S. 810, 66 S.CL 154 (19451. See e. ~. lJcBalne, Jurlt:· diction oyer Forel~l1 Corporntlons: Aetlon~ Artsln,: Out of ACts Done Within thl' Forum. 3-1 C:lllf.J...Uc'" 831 (1940); Notes. 18 U.Chl.L.Re\'". 102 (1001); 1(\ U.Chl.L.Re\'". ~ (19-&9); Dracbsler, The Status ot Allen Corporations In the Law ot the United States, 28 Fordb.L.Re\". 49, 50 (1953). 19. International Shoe Co. T. Washington, supra note IS, at 816: "To sar that the corporation is so far 'present' there as to satisfr due process requll'l" .ments.. . Is to beg the question to be dechl· ed.'; For international cases, see e. g. Sperling No,·elt.\' Corp. T. Frank & Hirsch Distribution Co., 299 1'.1:. 208, 8G N.E.2d 564 (l949) JSoutb-Afrlca); Gel'stensteln T. Peninsular « Oriental S. NOT. Co., 202 Mise. S3S, 118 N.1:.S.2d 3GO (Citr Ct.llrol2) (Great Britain); Maban T. Kennetb B. S. Robertson, Ltd., 188 F.Supp. 180 (W.D.Ky.1955) (Canada).

25. Perkins T. BenJroet Consol. Mining Co., 342 C.S. 43i, 72 S.Ct. 413 (lD;;l). 26. See e. Jr. Willinm I. Horlick CO. T. BOJrn(' EI(>ctric Mfg. Co., 146 F.Sup). 84i (D.C.Mass.10aO,. Hut cf. Biggs. C. J., concurring In Portin T. Michaels Art Bronze Co., 202 F.2d 545 (8d eir. 1953). . See alS<l W. H. ElUott « SoUlI Co. T. Nuodex Products Co., 248 F.2d 110 (lst Cir., 195;); Comment. 5 Stnnf.L. Re\'". 508 (1958). ". , . tbe Pennsrlvanla legislature dId not choose to exercise the full extent of jurisdiction conferrc.>d upon it . . . tt Rufo T. Bastian-Blessing Co.. 40~ Pa. 12, 173.A.2d 12S, 128 (1961). Sec also supra note

21. Learned Band, J .. in Bomze T. Nard1s Sports' wear, Inc., 165 F.2d SS, 86 (2d Clr. 1945).

16. See e. Jr. S. Bowes Co. '". W. P. MUllng Co., 2ii P.2d 655 (Ok1.1954), prab. jd noted 84S U.S. 949. iii S.CL 48i (1935), dlslll. per stip. 848 U.s. 983, 75 S. CL 575 (1935). But a license mar require ronsenL Ex parte Scbollenberger, 96 U.S. 869 (18i7). See also Prime Mfg. Co. T. Kelly. 8 Wis.2d 156, 'Si N.W.2d 788 (1958), app. dism. 858 U.S. 53, 79 S.Ct. 95 (1958) (Office with "little more").


·22. GoodrIch, J .. In Partin \'". lIiebaels Bronze Co., 202 F.2d 041 (3d Cir. 19::i3), denying bls court's jurisdiction under the "dolDg business" requirement ot Pennsyl\'"ania. See also Mississippi Wood PreseM'ing Co. T. Rothscbild, 201 F.2d 233 (5th Cir. 1953); National Concessions T. National Circus Corp., 34i MiCh. 335, 79 N.W.2d 910 (1956): Dodd '". Rahway Valler Co.. 150 F.Supp. 599 (D.C.N.J,l957); Ark-La Feed « Fertilizer Co..T. Marco Cbemlcal Co., 292 F.2d 19; (8th Oir. 1961); Shoffner T. Glensbaw Glass Co., 178 F.Supp. 850 (W.D.Pa.1959).
E/nnzwtlg Conflict. 01 LaM-l

27. McKnJgbt T. Greenlee. 133 F.Supp. S30 (N.D.lnd. 1955). Of. Braniff v. eotlleld, 199 Okl OW, 190 P.2c 815 (1947).






Ch. 1

§ 33


isfied by such minor activities IS as single sales through a broker;!9 the maintenance by a newspaper of a circulation-servicing arrangement;30 the mailing by an insurer of a single group-insurance certificate;31 and probably even the solicitation of business through an afIiliated corporation.U Where
28. See e. g. Brown v. Globe Laboratories, 165 Neb. 138. 54 N.W.2d 151 (1051); Behling v. Wisconsin Hydro Electric Co., 275 Wis. 569, 83 N.W.2d 162 (lOOn. But see Brandeis llachinery & Supply Co. v. llatewoy .Alma Fuel Corp., 14:7 F.Supp~ 821 (E.D. Ky.l!l5i): Heon;la Lumber & '-eneer Corp. v. Solem lluchine Co., 150 F.Snpp. 126 (lI.D.Gn.1U5i) (services ot tlemollstrlltor ot machines sold); Colora.do Builders Supply Co. v. Hinman Bros. Const. Co., 134 Colo. 383. :~04 P.:!d 892 (10"'''{}) tsales representative). 29. S. Bowes Co. v. W. P. lUlling Co.• m P.2d 6."ioi (Ok1195-1-l, prob. Jd. noted !J.48 U.S. 940, 75 S.et. 431 (1000) tlism. per :itip. :14I~ G.S. 083, is S.Ct. 575 (10503): See- :s'ote, 104 U.l'n.L.Re\·. 381, 306 (1055). 30. Hnnter \". Afro-American Co., 13.1 F.Snpp. 812 (E.D.S.C.lf1a5l. Rut ~ Brewster \". noRton HeraldTra\'eler Corp., 14-1 F.Supp. ioo (D.C.lle.10G6). And compare Jenkins \'. Dell Publishin~ Co.• 130 F.Supp. 104. 132 F.Snpp. 50j6 (W.D.Pa.105m. roitla. Le Vecke v. Grlesedleek Western Brewery Co .• :!33 F.2d m 10th Clr. 1056). In general, :See Anno., 38 A.L.R.2tl

the conclusion or breach of a contract within the forum state as such is held to satisfy the statutory requirement of doing business, this requirement approaches the alternative of a domestic cause of action (infra). Domestic cause of action without business. The requirement of the carrying on of, or even the admission to, business activities within the state, still apparently assumed in International Shoe (supra), was soon abandoned in cases involving domestic causes of action. Travelers Health Association v. Virginia 33 and Justice Black's opinion in Polizzi v. Cowles Magazines, Inc.:U had indicated a trend which reached its climax in the same Justice's opinion in McGee v. International Life Insurance CO.,35 which will be discussed more fully. The same trend had found earlier expression in the long-standing rule that even past business activities may support
33. Tra.velers Health Ass'n v. Virginia. 330 U.S. 643. 70 S.Ct. 027 (1049). A ~ebra.~ka Insurance corporation whose Virginia policy holders \"olunwrily solicited new memberships in their home state was served at Its home otftce in NebnlSka by registered mail with a cease and desist order of the Virginia court pursuant to the Virginia Blue Sky Laws. Jurisdiction was upheld by the U. S. Supreme Court in reliance on International Shoe. supra note 19, apparently on the ground that defendant's trnnsacdon. though carried on from Nebraska, constituted "minimum contacts" under the doctrine of that case, particularly since tbe. forum invoked was the most appropriate one under what DlQY come to be a doctrine of forum conveniens (AI 25, MIf.). Douglas, J., concurring, stresses a possible difference between the due process requirement in this case of an action by the state nnd "where a pOlicyholder seeks to sue the out-of-state company in Virginia" (at 652),. leaving open possible future Insistence on transactions in the" forum state. lllnton. J., joined by tbree other justices, rested his dissent In part on the fllct that all of defendant's "contracts with the residents of Vb'ginia were by man" Ilnd "the contracts were made wholly in Xebraska" (at 658). See also Schutt v. Commerclal Travelers lfutual Accldent Ass'n, 229-' F.2d 158 (2d Clr. 1956), cert. den. 351 U.S. 940, 76' S.Ot. 836 (1956); Notes, 39' Caltf.L.Bev. 152 (1951); 43 Callf.L.Rev. 338 (1955); 64 Harv.LoRev. 482 (lOG1). 34. Polizzi v. Cowles liagazines, Inc., 345 U.S. 663. 661,73 S.Ot. 900,908(1953).

jurisdiction ir-though adherence to formal requirements has made courts persist in the rejection of atte!Dpts to reach foreign corporations through 'their domestic subsidiaries.3' So far, however, there do not seem to have been any cases of final authority in which personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation was affirmed in the absence of both a domestic cause of action and continuing activities within the state. 38 Rather, where
36. See American Ranway Express Co. \". F. S. Royster Gunno Co.• m U.S. 274, 47 S.Ct. 355 (lO27); Oro :s'11\·. Co. \". Superior Court. 82 Cnl.App.2d SSl lSi P.2d -H4 (1047); Edgewater Realty Co. \". Ten: nessee Coal. Iron &: R. R.. 40 F.Supp. S01, 816 (D.C. lIdl943); supra i 28 note 23.

115 such activities are dispensed with courts . eft: ' , In ect, have continued to insist upon domestic causes of action and scrutinized closely the type and origin of the cause of action involved.38e

31. Security ~atlonal Life los. Co. v. Washington, 113 A.2d H9 (D.C.llun.CUpp.l0551. app. den, 00 U.S.App.D.O. 345. 226 F.2d ~1 (lD5G). See Note, 104 U.Pn.L.Rev. 561 (1056). 32. See SCholnik v. ~ntional Airlines, Inc.. 219 F.2d 115 (6th Cir. 195;3) (nlso Involving other contacts); .Jenkins v. Dell Publishing Co., 130 F.Supp. 104 (W. D.Pn.1905) (domestic cause of nctlon): ::3ales AJfiliates. Inc. v. Superior Ct.. 00 Cal.App.2d 134. !ll4 p, 2d ;H1 (19-;;0) (same); State ex ret Grinnell Co. v. llacPberson, 112 ~.l[. 308, 309 P.2d 081 (1001), cert. den. 355 U.S. 825 (10~m. But see Hayman v. ::36uthern Paclftc Co., ~S S.W.:!d i40 P(0.19OO); Heath v. Kresky lUg. Co., 242 ~.C. 215. 87 S.E.2d 300 (1955): line Innes v. Fontnlnebleu Hotel Corp., 25i F.2d 832 (2d Cir. 1058). Whether the much-mooted llecision In Hanson v, Denckln, 351 U.S. 236, 'is S.Ct. 1128 (1938), infra: note 00b, has Initiated a reverso.l of the trend. cannot yet· be determined. See Grobark v. Addo llachine Co., 16 lll.2d 426, 158 N.E2d i3 (1950), with an elaborate cllssent; Trippe lUg. Co. v. Spencer GIfts, Inc., ZiO F.2d 821 (ith Cir. 1009); L. D. Reeder Contractors of Ariz. v. HIggins Industries, Inc., 265 F.2d 768, 775 (9th Cir. 10lS9) (even reintroducing a cautle of nction requirement from Hanson. supra). Cf. Green v. Bluff Oreek Oil Co., 287 F.2d 66 (5th Clr. 1961); Nnt. Gas Appllnnce Corp. v. AS Electl'olux, 270 F.2d 472 (7th Clr. 1959) (Swedish corporation). On the inconclusive interpretation of the "doing business" test of the 1959 Texas statute. see Gooch, Jurisdiction over Fote1gn Corporations under Article 2031b, 89 Tex.L.Rev. 214, 225-226 (1960).

35.. McGee v. International Lite Ins. Co..
924. 77. S.Ct. 289 (1957), per Black, 1.

3$ U.s..

37. Cannon lUg, CO. T. Cudnby Packing Co.• 267 U.S. 333, 45 S.Ct. :!r',o (1025); ~ational Carbide Corp \" Comm'r. 336 U.S. 422. 430, 69 S.Ct. i26. i35 (10..9) (taxation); Echeverry v. Kellogg Switchboanl & Supply Co.. 175 F.2d 000 (2d CI r. 1940); l!~erglls lfotors, Inc. v. Standard-Triumph llotor Co.. 130 F.Supp. 7SO (S.O.N.Y.l95l); Harris \". Deere &: Co elgn corporation to jurisdiction in the absence of ~ F .2d 161 (4th Cir. 1955); State Street Tnlst both domestic bllsiness and acts, npon causes of ncCo. v. BOAC, 144 F.Supp. 241 (S.D.. 'Il.Y.I056); Berktion "out of the production . . . of t:'OOds man v. Ann Lewis Shops, 246 F.2d 44. 48 (2d Cir. . . . with the reasonable expectation that those lOOn (npparently conceding constitutionality of a goods a~e to be used ~r consumed In this State sta.tute (:onferring Such juriSdiction); Anderson v. . • . . Accord. Putnam v. Triangle Publications BOAC, 144 F.Supp. 543 (S.D.N.Y.l956). But see Inc.. 245 N.C. .J32, 06 S.E.:!d -H5 (1f)57). But ci. United States v. Watchmakers of SWitzerland InShe~ v. Rheem lUg. Co.. 240 ~.C, 454. 106 fonnatlon Center. 134 F.Supp. no (S.D.N.Y.1D55) S.E_d 104 (1959) (Comment. 1050 Onke L.J 644) • (nffiUation and tortious acts): Steinberg v. Hardy, Gray v. .American Radiator &: 8tandard S~nlblr; 90 F.Supp. In (O.C.Conn.l950) (stockbolders' acCorp., 22 IIl.2d 432. 176 ~.E.2d i61, i61 (1061). tions under J udlci:ll Code, Il695); Goodman v. Pan See also Renfroe v. ~lchols Wire & Aluminum Co Ame~ica.n World Airways. 1 llisc.2d 050. 148 N.Y.S. :us lOch. 425, 83 N. W.2d 500 (l00i)' Foster~' 2d 353 (1006). oa'd 2 .A.D.2d i07, 153 N. Y.S.2d 600 110mSon, 226 S.O. 140, Sol S.E.2d 344 (19M) (nfte~ (1956) (managing agent); United States v. BuJfalo withdrawal); Foster, Persono.l Jurisdiction Based Weaving & Belting Co.. 100 F.Supp. -!54 (S.D.N Y on Local Causes of Action, ll056} WIs.I...Rev. 522 1957) ("fictitious" separation); lIasseY-Harris-F~r: (1956); Sobeloft', Jurisdiction of State Courts over CUson, Ltd.. v. Boyd. 242 F.2d 800 (6th Oir. 195i), Nonresidents in Our Federal S:vstem 43 Corn L Q cert den. 355 U.S. 80S (1058) (Canada): Waldron 196 (195i); Cardozo, The Reach of the Legisl~ru~ v. British Petrolemn Co.. 149 F.Supp. 830 and the Grasp of Jurisdiction, 43 CorD.I...Q ')10 (S.D.N.Y.l951); In re Siemens & Balske A. G., Ber~i95i); Comment, 29 lliss.L.J. 91 (1057); "f n;te lin. Germany, 155 F.Supp. 897 (S.D.N.Y.1057) (antitrust suits distinguisbed); Alfred Hofmann & Co. v. _Knrl Mayer" Erste, etc., ~59 F.Supp. iT (D.C.N..T. 38a. In this entire discussion, contracts nre treated 1058); State v. MacPherson. 62 N.M. 308 309 P.2d na creating 11 cause of action at the time of theIr 981 (1957). See also Alyea, Subsidiary Co~rations conclnslon. While analytically incorrect (it Is the onder the Common and Olvil Law, 66 Harv.L.Rev. breach that gives rise to the claim), this usa ge accords with judicial practice. l227 (19M): Latty, Subsidiaries and A.tDlIated Cor~ratious (1936); Anno., 18 A.L.R.2d 181; Notes, 39. l1artJn v. Fischbach Tnlcklng 00., 183 F.2d 53 U"t ~ex.L.Rev. 946 (1956): [1956] WIs.L.Rev. 668: 1st Olr.1930): Jones v. Pebler, 371 ill. 309, 20 N.E. Cardozo, 36 N.Oar.L.Rev. 181 (1958). .d 592 (1939); Bishoff v. Schnepp, 139 Misc. 293, 249 For a perceptive reexamination of the Oannon docN.Y.S. 49 (N.Y.Olty Ct.1930); Pot! v. New England Road Machinery Co., 83 N.H. 232. 140 A. 381 trine, In light of receIlt jurisdlctl.Ollal developments. (1928). See also supra § 28 note 24.. see Empire Steel Corp. v. Superior Court, 11 OaL Rptt'. 150, 366 P.2d 502 (1961), J)el" White, J. 40~ See Glllloz v. KIncannon, 2lS Ark. 1010, 214 S.W. ".d 212 (1948); Green v. Equitable Powder lUg Co 38: Erlanger M1ll8 v. Cohoes Fiber MUls, 289 F.2d' 9& F.Supp. 237 (D.O.Ark.l951); Obapmnn Ch~i~i ~ (4th Clr.l956), OOids unconstitutional a North Co. v. Taylor, 215 Ark. 630, 222 S.W.2d 820 (1949)arolina statum insofar as it would subject a tor. ' Anno., 2!S A.L.R.2d 1202.·

The first isolated causes of action admitted as ~ basis of jurisdiction over foreign corporations were t0rt8 cOmmitted within the state. The earliest cases of this type were apparently those involving foreign defendants operating automobiles within the state. 3D In other cases other torts, while not ~y themselves held to furnish the jurisdictional basis, were found to support a finding "dOing bUSiness." -10 Finally, however, the hIghest court of Vermont upheld a state statute as constitutional which permitted con-' structive service over foreign corporate defendants having committed "a tort in whole







.§ 33



or in part in Vermont.".4J. And a federal court sitting in Maryland decided likewise as to a· simllar Maryland statute.a Both cases concerned torts other than those generally considered as involving acts "dangerous to life and property," '3 and thus went beyond the limits suggested by the American Law Institute." So did the Dlinois court in upholding what may become the model statute for future legislation.B And so would the Uniform Securities Act which would base jurisdiction on "conduct prohibited or made actionable by the act." tao Torts committed through the ownership of real property 48 are likely to be treated in the same manner. Both courts and legislatures seem inclined to expand jurisdiction under this heading to .foreign acts resulting in forum injury."
41. Smyth T. Twin State Improvement Co.• 116 VL MS. SO A.2d 8M (1951): Comments, 43 Ya.L.Be\,. 1105 (l95i); 3i Corn.L.Q. 458 (1952): 50 )llcb.L. Re\,. 763: 100 C.Pa.L.Re\'. 598 (19a2): 8G Minn.L. Re\,. 264 n052): Anno.• 25 A.L.n.2d 1202. See also


Goodrich :nO: a~d supra § 28 at note 40. 42. John!: T. Rnr ~tatt' Abrasive Product" Co.. 89 F.Rupp. fl5.I m.C.!\ld.101lO1. See Comment, lR U.Cbi. L.Re\,. ill:! (10:;1). But cr. Cole '\". Randall Park Bolding Co., 201 Md. Gl G. 9a A.2d 273 (1953).

Since both events have little bearing on jurisdictional equities .and transport into the law of jurisdiction .many an insolvable problem·of choice of law, one may wonder whether it 'would not be more appropriate in tort c::ases frankly to establish a jurisdictional basis at the plaintUf's domicUe where, incidentally, his hanD is ultimately most clearly located. This solution has been rejected on the ground that a plaintiff sustaining injuries away from home would have to bear the risk of a foreign forum "when he chooses to engage in activities abroad." ". But this argument is not persuasive in tort cases where the parties' relationship is an involuntary one. To avoid forum shopping, the time of the infliction of the injury could be made determinative. On the other hand, the forum delicti commissi could remain avaDable to facilitate litigation at the place where the evidence is most readily obtainable. Some states have provided for a similar jurisdiction based on (isolated) causes of action "arising out of a contract made within" the state.fB The validity of such statutes, which for some time was open to doubt,a is
also Adamek T. ~liehlgan Door Co., 260 )finn. 54. lOS NoW.2d 60i (1001): Comment, 4{) Mlnn.L.ReT. 12i (lOGO,: nnd Jrenerallr Comment, 'i3 BaM'.L. BeT. 9O'J. 998-1008 (1960). But see McClarin T. Boeing Airplane Co., 340 P.2d 4:;5 (Ok1.l959) (damages to forum property inftlcted by airplane O\'\"lled br foreign corporation, no single act statute, held not "doing business"): New York Times Co. '\". Conner. 290 F.2d 402. 494-495 (5th Cir. 1961) (defamation). 47a. Cleary. The Length of the Long Arm, 9 J.Pub. L. 293. 299 (1960). 48. Md.Code Ann. (Flack 1951), art. 23, f 88(d); Companla de Astral S. A. ,'. Boston Metals Co., 205 Md. 23., 107 A..2d 357 (1954) .. cert. den. 34S U.S. 943,75 S.Ct. 865 (1955); Notes, 48 Cnllf.L.ReT. 838 (l95:j); Comment, 22 U.ChI.L.Be". 674 (1955). See Relbllch, Jurisdiction of Maryland Courts over Foreign Corporations under the Act of 1937, 8 Md.L.Re'\". 35 (1938); Comment, 50 N.W.U.L.Be'\". 425 (1955). See also Jenkins T. Dell Pub. Co., 132 F.Supp. 656 (W. D.Pa.191S5); Baas v. Fancher Furniture Co., 156 F.Supp. 564 (N.D.Ill.l957); AnDo., 49 A.L.B.2d
668 (1956).

'DOW clearly established by the SUpreme Court ·decision in McGee v. IntemationalLife Insurance Co. GO which upheld in this respect a statute of what is perhaps the most important special type of statutes here pertinent, namely a so-called UnauthorizEtQ Insurers Process Act These statutes permit service upon a state officer (usually the Insurance . 'Commissioner) and presume his appointment by an unauthorized insurer issuing poliCies upon the lives of residents or property within the state.1n

In the McGee case the contract was CODcluded and to be performed in the forum state.. But the Court was .careful not to condition due process upon .either fact, or on :the place of the origin of the "cause of' action. " The statute permitted constructive service where the insured was a "resident" of the forum state, '8Jld the Court found this fact (together with the place of delivery of the policy and maDing of premiums) sufficient to establish the necessary "substantial connection"· of the contract with the forum.~ Problems of judicial.analysis will continue


Ark. 184, 127 S.W.2d 816 (1989). app. dlsm. 808 U.S. 504, 60 S.CL 88 (1989), reb. den. 80S U.S. 635, 60 S.CL 134 (1939): Cbnpman Cbemical Co. v. Taylor. 215 Ark. 630, 222 S.W.2d 820 (1940); Johns '\".
As -to the Engllsh practice to this effect.

to arise, however, from the limitations of most statutes to "causes of action" accrued
within the state, a concept which has been found troublesome in other fields of the conflict of laws. Thus it may be difficult to ascertain the time of accrual in cases of corporations withdrawing from the state.!13 It may be doubtful whether a statute referring to contracts "to be performed in ·whole or in part by either party" in the forum state,lW would or could be upheld if the conflicts law of that state 'otherwise "chose" the law of the place of making the contractIti And
52. McGee '\". International Life lns. Co., supra note 00. at 223. See also PUj:b ,'. Oklahoma Farm Buren\! Mutual Ins. Co., 159 F.Supp. 155 (E. D. La. 1958). boldlng. under tile McGee rule. tbe place or accident n sufficient contact in n udlrect action" against n foreiJm insurer. Infra t 87 note 24. Cf. Cox '\". Fldellt~'-Phenlx }"ire Ins. Co.• 203 Tenn. 3Sti. 313 S.W.2d 429 (1958); Lone Star Motor lmporl. Inc.• \'. Citroen Cars Corp•• ]gj F.Supp. 48 (S.D . Tex.l960), rev'd 28S F.2d 69 (5th Clr.1961).

:f t


BaT State Abrasive Products Co.. supra note 42see Buies of the Supreme Court, Order Xl. rule l(e) (1883), 1 ADoual Practice (1962). Ct. Note. 18 U.CbLL.Re\'. 792. 700 (1951); supra § 28 note 41.


MeGee T. International Life Ins- Co•• 3Gti U.S. 92-1, j j S.Ct. 239 (1957).




See also e. g. Gavenda Bros., Inc. T. Elkins Limestone Co., W.Va. 116 S.E.2d 9]0 (1960): Dahlberg Co. '\". Western Bearing Aid Center, Ltd.• 259 Minn. 330. 107 N.W.2d S8l (1961" cerL den. SOO U.S. 901, 81 S.CL 1921 (1961); Beck ,'. Spindler, 25G Minn. 543, 99 N.W.2d OiO (l959).


Johns '\". Bnr State Abrasl\'C Products Co., supra note 42 (Injurief: rt'!:ultln:: froID misrepresentation as to defecth'e j:rllldin#: wheel); Smyth T. 'l'\vin State ImproTement Co., supra note 41 (holes placed in· building by roofer. causing water leak). See alf:O Huppert '\". Morrison, 117 YL 83, S5 A.2d 584 (19a2). 44. Supra § 28 note a8. 45. Nelson '\". ~Iiller. 11 Ill. 3iS. 143 N.E.2d Gi3 n9.J1) (involTlng an Indh'ldunl defendant. suprn § 2S note 40). On the Act, see e./;. Clearr and Seder, Extended Jurisdictional Bafo;e~ for the Illinois Courts. GO N.'W'.U.L.Re\'. 599 (1955): O'Connor and Goff, Expanded Concepts etc., 81 N.D.Lawyer 223 (1056); Comment. 5 DePaul L.ReT. lOG n955). For restrictive interpretation of the Act, see Orton '\". Woods on &. Gas Co., 249 F.2d 198 (7th Clr.1957); Bellrlegel T. Sears Roebuck &. Co., 157 F.Supp. U8 (N.DlU.1957). 45&. 9C U.L.A. (1957) 84. 145 £I 414(h)]. See also Loss, Blue Sky Law (l95S) 408. Cf. Paulos T. Best Securities Inc., 260 MlDn. 283, 109 N.'W.2d 676 (1961). 46. See·supra § 28 Dotes 48ft. 47. On the Wisconsin statute, see Foster, E%pandiDg Jurisdiction over Nonresidents, [Sep.1959) Wls. Bar Bull. 8, 15-20 with comparative an9:1yslB. See



51. A uniform act., 9C U.L.A. (l9an 303. was in substance adopted in Ark.Stat.Ann. f 66-2904-05 (Supp.

~r· .-:-.







49. American Farmers Ins. Co. Tbomeson, 21; Ark. 705, 234 S.W.2d 87 (1950) (accident insurance), cit. Ing Blgbway Steel.&. Mfg. Co. v. KlDcannon, 198



1959) : CaUns.Code Ann. § 1610 (Deering 1000); Conn.Geri;Stat.Ann. I 8S-65: La.Re".SUlL § 2:!1253 (1959) ; Mass.Gen.La,,·s Ann. c. 175B. ~ 2 (l95S) ; Mlcb.Comp.Laws H 58-164(3) (1900); Pn. Purdon's Stat.Ann. tiL 40, ~ 1005.2 (1954); S.C. Code ADn. § 3;-205 (1052); S.D.Codt' H 8L3901 ff. (1952 Supp.); Tenn.Co(le Ann. I on-328 (1001 Supp.). These and similar statutes [see Comment, 14 Wasb. and Lee L.ReT. 123 (195i)] baTe been beld constitutional. McGee T. lnterDationnl Insurance Co•• supra note 50. See also e. g. Canndian lndemnitr Co. T. State Automobile Ins. Ass·n. 120 F.Supp. 819 (N.D.CaU954); Groff '\". Automohlle Owners Safetr Ins. Co., ISO Ken. 618, 300 P.2d 180 (105i); Dauphin Deposit Trust Co. T. Commercial Travelers Mutual Aecldent Ass'n, 6 A.D.2d 960. lil N.Y.S.2d 900 (19M) ; Boss T. American Income Life lns. Co.• 232 S.C. 483, 102 S.E.2d 743 (1958). For a restrictive interpretation of the slmllar Missouri statute, Mo.Re\".Stat. § 875.210(2) (1949). see Cowley,\". Auto 1'ransports, 122 F.Supp. 689 (W.D.Mo.1954). But cf. Kaye T. Doe, 204 MiSc. 719, 123 N.Y.S.2d 1S5 (Sup. Ct.1953). construing N.Y.Ins.ww I 59-a. On New Jersey legislation see Daoud T. Kleven InT. Co.• 30 N.J.Super. 38, lOS A.2d 257 (1954). For a full analysis, see Florio v. Powder Power Tool Corp•• . 248 F.2d 86i (3d ·Clr.1957); and in general Note, 39 Va.L.ReT. 966 (1053).

See e. g. De Board '\". B. Perini and Sons. ]4(1 "'·.Va. 838, 8i S.E.2d 402 (lOw) (nt least breacb or Injury must ba"e occurred prior to witbdrnwalJ: Foster T. Morrison. 220 S.C. 140. 84 S.E.2d 34-1 (1954) ; Carlton Properties '\". 82S Properties, 208 MIse. 776. 143 N.Y.S.2d 140 (195:j): Autonana T. Ore Steamship Corporation. 144 F.Supp. 486 (S.D. N.Y.1950); Sunbury Wire Bope Mfg. Co. T. United States Steel Corp., 280 F.2d 511 CSd Clr.1950l; Rest. Second, TenL Draft No. 4 (1957) § 93. See also supra § 28 note 28.

54. See the Vermont statute in Smyth T. Twin Statf Improvement Co., supra note 41. 55. See the Maryland statute, s\lpra note 48. cr. Panamerlcan Consulting Co. '\". Corbu lndustrlal S. A., 219 Mel. 478, 150 A.2d 250 (1959), wbere jurisdlc· tion was denied thougb one party bad signed the







§ 33



defamation by broadcasts sa or newSpaper publications offer insolvable problems in this respect as well as with regard to choice of: law.3T The origin of the "cause of action" was de· terminative in a New York case holding unconstitutional a statute which had permitted constructive service on foreign air carriers in suits upon foreign accidents.58 On the other hand, a California court, in a case involving products manufactured·by a New York corporation and distributed in California, held that corporation amenable to process in the state because it would be "burdensome" for the plaintiff "to go to New York to sue," S9 rather than on the ground that the defendant had committed a tort within the state. Under this approach, the ultimate test would be "whether there is afforded to both parties a greater amount of justice by allowing suit in this state rather than requiring it elsewhere." eo The McGee case seems to favor such a test,eo.. while Hanson v. Denckla GOb declares it to be "essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws." Protection·' of interstate commerce may necessitate certain limitations.61 But in gencontract in llaryland. On similar problems in torts cases, see supra note 45. 56. WSAZ Y. Lyons. 254 F.2d 242 (6th Cir. If)58). 57. Infra § 216. See e. g. ~ew York Times Co. v. Conner, 201 F.2d 492 (5th Clr. 1961). 58. See Peters v. Rohln Airlines. 281 App.Dlv. no~, 120 N.Y.S.2d 1 (1053): . ~ote, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 662 (1056): supra § 28 note 46. 59. Fielding v. Superior Court. 111 CnJApp.2d 490. 244 P.2d 068 (1052), cere. den. 344 U.S. 891, 73 S. Ct. 277 (1052). 60. Id•• at 111 Ctll.App.2d 400, 244 P.2d _ 97260a. l[cGee v. Internatlonlll Life Ins. Co., supra notes 50, ;')2. 60b. HllJlSOn v. Denck1a. 351 U.S. 235. 253, 78 S.Ct. 12"..8, 1240- (1958). But see Justice Black's dJssent. apparently .InsiSting on bis more general formula in the l[cGee case. supra note roo 61. Stumberg 81, 89. 00: intra § 40 DOtes 34fr.

era! progressive abandonment of the require~ ments of both domestic business and domestic cause of action has resulted in almost complete constitutional freedom of state legisla.· tures and courts in taking jurisdiction over foreign corporations. Early "existence" or "power" limitations have been replaced by vague tests of fairness. This development must ultimately lead to the acceptance of Judge Hand's simple formula: "[T]be court must balance the conflicting interests involved: i. e., whether the gain to the plaintiff, in retaining the action where it was, outweighed the burden imposed upon the defendant; or vice versa. That question is certairJy indistinguishable from the issue of 'forum non conveniens'" (§§ 25, 35 ff.).61


Recent ~cceleration in the development of the- law of' jurisdiction over individuals and· corporations is not yet fully reflected in the law gpv.erPing-the petsorlaI jurisdiction over partneFSbjp.S::ancLother unincorporated associatio~-FOmnally; Justice Holmes' opinion in FIexner-·~ Parson: 114 is still the leading au· thority~ .A judgment recovered after service upon the agent of a foreign partnership was held void, since a partnership in contrast to a corporation could not constitutionally have been excluded from the state. The abandonment of this rationale as to corporations (p. 112), on the one hand, and the continuing ex62. Knpatrick v. Texas &: P. R. R., 166 F.2d 788. 790 (2d Cir.1948), cen. den. 335 U.S. 814. 69 S.Ct. 32 (11).18). See also L. Hnnd. J .• dissenting in Deutsch Y. Hoge, 146 F.2d 201, 203 (2d Clr.l944), cere. den. !J25 U.S. 852. I};) S.Ct. 1088 (1945): supra § 25 note 1. For an excellent summary of post-ltcGeeHanson law. see Fisher Governor Co. v. Superior Court. 53 Cal.2d 1. 341 P.2d 1. 3-4 (1f)59), per Traynor, J. But see a.Iso Kurland, The Supreme Court. The Due Process Clause and the In Personam Jurlsdlctlori ~ of State Courts, From Pennoyer toDenckla: A. Review, 569. 610-624 (1958). 63. The procedural capacity of these associations has been dIscuSSed supra §! 12, 24. 64. Flener v. Farson, 248 U.S. 289, 39 S.Ct. Dr (1919), supra § 28 note 11.





pansion of personal jurisdiction over individuals (§ § Z7 ft.), on the other band, appears to have deprived ~is case of "any vitality." 65 And this may also be true for the subsequent ruling in Henry L. Doherty & Co. v. Good· man,ee which relied on a related test of susceptibility to state regulation. It seems clear that, once the separate identity of an unincorporated association is established (§ 22), the statute may constitu· tionally provide for service upon the agent of any partnership doing business within the state, though a judgment against the partnership will not be effective against the nonpartnership property of such partners as were not personally served.6'l On the other hand. it is not clear whether courts would yet be willing to apply the Perkins doctrine of corporations 68 to unincorporated associations. Several decisions seem to indicate
65. Hal"()e'" Talntor. Camahan and BrowD. Conflict of TH"\W!I (If)!')0) MS. See e.g. KatT~nherger v. Kremp. ... Ik1 l·'.~IIPp. !l2-l IE.D.Pa.104m (Ilpplylng corporate "rioing husiness" test to question of nmenllblllty to process of agent of nonresident partnership): Rosenblum v. Judson Engineering Corp.• Qf) ~.H. 261. 100 A.2d 5:"lS (l05-l) tout of state service on nonresident member of partnership doing business in the forum state).

that service statutes must constitutionally be interpreted as being limited to causes of action growing out of the association's domestic business.-


66. Doherty &: Co. v. Goodman. 294 U.S. 623, 5a S.Ct. 55.1 1103.1»). But see as to the prohable continued relet'ance of both this case nnd the Flexner case. supra note M. for jurisdiction over Indivldunls, Ehrenzweig, supra § 28 note Ob. This assumptloD seems to be supported by HllDSOn V. Denckla. supra Dote OOb. 67. Sugg v. Thornton, 132 U.S. 524, 10 S.Ct. 163 (188!»: Esteve Bros. &: Co. 'I. Harrell. 272 F. 382 (5tb Cir.l021). .ls to when an association is an "Inhabitnnt" under the Judicial Code. see Sperry PrOducts, Inc. v. ~ssoclatlon of American Railronds. 132 F.2d 408 (2d Cir.1042), per Learned Hand. J., cert. den. 3t!) U.S. i44. 63 S.Ct. 1031 (1042). See In genernJ. Holdoegel. Jurisdiction o\'er Partnerships. Non-partnersbip Associations. and Joint Debtors, 11 Iowa L.Rev. 103 (1926): lIagruder and Foster, Jurisdiction over PartnershIps, 31 Harv.L. Rev. i03 (1924): OvertoD, Broadening the Bases of Individual in Personam Jurlsdlctlon in Tennessee, 22 Tenn.L.Rev. 237 (1952): Comment, 42 IllL.Rev. i2, 82 (1941); supra § 24 note 36 (Joint Debtor Acts).
68. Supra· note 25. Also, "a partnersblp has no residence aside from that of the individual partners." BarriS ~lfg. Co. v. WWlams, 151 F.Supp. 77f) (W.D. Ark.l95j).

"Power" and its offspring, the requirements of "implied consent,tt "presence," and domestic "causes of action," are apparently about to be discarded. But "minimum contacts", now the element of the courts' general concept of "fair play," too, may easily become as rigid and irrational a requirement as those they are about to replace. DomiCile, residence, former residence, place of business, and even location of acts or events, are closely allied to the power ideology both in origin and effect, and, being foreign to the litigated cause, are hardly a "fair" test of jurisdiction. Nor will these or other "contacts" fall readily into a pattern easily detined, and courts will have to mold a new common law of "convenient" jurisdiction from case to case, by trial and by error. In thefollowing summary, an attempt is made to restate in general terms the present stage in this development (referring for detail and specific rules to the preceding discussion).

a. Both foreign associations and nonresident individuals are subject to the forum's personal jurisdiction if either "personal" (p. 88) or "substituted" (p. 92) service is obtained within the state. Such service in thecase of corporations must, and in the case of
69. lIcDanlel v. Textile Workers Union of America. (CIO), 36 Tenn.App. 236, 254 S.W.2d I, 3 (1952): Doggett v. Peek, 32 F.Snpp. 880 (N.D.Tex.1940): Quinn V. Pershing, 36i Pa. 426. 80 A.2d n2 (1951); Note, 6 Vand.L.Rev. i83 (1953). See also Staft'ord .v. Wood, 234 N.C. 622, 68 S.E.2d 268 (1051) (no domestic business); ~erlund v. Schiavone, 1 Wis. 328, 84 ~. W.2d 61 (looj): Youngblood V. Bright, 243 ~.C. 500. 01 S.E.2d 559 (1056); and- in general Notes, 45 Cal1f.L.Rev. 03 (1057): 6 Vand.L.Rev. 783 (1953).



Ch. 1

§ 35



f1II/.y consist of service upon ·an agent appointed by the defendant for this purpose. While a transient individual may be served

individuals or unincorporated associations from which the cause of action bas arisen; -or (c) was engaged in ·continuous and systematic activities at the time the cause of action arose (pp. 95, 112); (d) even in theoabsence (p. 103), a transient corporate officer may of any of these conditions, where "fair play and opportunity to be heard" wiD be secured not (p. 111) . by proper notice and "minimum contacts'· b. State statutes providing for personal (p. 113), such as the place of contracting, service outside the state (p. 92), both as to performance or residence. individuals and associations, or for construc(3) Finally, a limited jurisdiction "quasitive service by publication or through statutory agents (p. 82), will, if combined with in-rem" may be acquired by constructive mailing of the summons or other direct noti- service where defendant's property has been fication (p. 96), be held constitutional at brought under the control of the court (§ 29) . c. Any flaw in the jurisdiction due to imleast in the following cases: proper service is removed by express con(1) where an individual defendant is a sent or consent implied in general appearance domiciliary, or, quite probably, where he is or special appearance made equivalent therea resident of the forum state (p. 94); . to by statutory or judicial rule (p. 90). (2) generally as to associations (p. 110), d. In some cases, "retained" jurisdiction and in certain situations as to individuals, may entitle a court to adjudicate a personal where the defendant, within the state (a) has action by virtue of service effected in prior committed a tortious act; (b) owns property "concomitant" proceedings (p.91).

While this traditional classification will be followed, it wiD appear that, on the one hand, so-called "mandatory" exclusions have been or are being transformed into additional instances of discretionary dismissals; ,;8Ild that, on the other hand, the exercise of discretion either has been severely limited by constitutional mandate, or has begun to develop a common law of its own which may yet come

to function as a negative aspect oof the concept of jurisdiction itself. Moreover, it has been found expedient throughout "to include in this discussion certain dismissals-such as those based on statutes of limitatio~ or on public policy-which, traditionally, are treated as relating to the merits of the case rather than to the court's jurisdiction.

The rules governing so-called "discretionary" dismissal, though in general governed

and in increasing number of states,! thi.. doctrine can be understood in its present, ana
Regarding application of this doctrine by the Supremt: Court In its original jurisdiction, see Bart an\l Wechsler. The Federal Courts and the Federal System (1053) 258-200; Cowen, Federal Jurisdiction In Australia (1950) 69-71. 2. The doctrine ha~ been adopted In several states. Running v. Southwest Freight Lines, 227 Ark. 839, 303 S.W.2d 578 (1957); Price v. Atchison. T. & S. PR,.•• 42 Cal.2d tii7, 268 P.2d 457 (054), CCJ'L den. 848 U.S. &19, 75 S.CL 44 (1954): Whitner v. Madden, 400 IJJ. 185, 79 N.E.2d 593 (1948), cert. den. SSG U.S. 828. 69 S.CL :m (1948): Union Cit,. Transfer ,'. Fleldti, 199 So. 200 (La.App.1940) : FORS T. Richards, 126 Me. 419, 189 A. 818 (1927); Unlver· sal Adjustment Corp. v. Midland Bank. 281 Mass. 803, 184 N.E. 152 (1983,; Johnson v. Chicago. B, & Q. Ry. Co., 243 Minn. 58. 00 N.W.2d 763 (1954): State ex reI. Subscribers l". Brady, 808 S.W.2d 052 (~lo.1958); Jackson & Sons ,'. Lumberman's Mutual Casualty Co., 86 N.B. 341. 108 A. 895 (1983,; Starr T. Berr,., 2U N.J. 573. 138 A.2d 44 (19581; Mur· man v. Wabash nr. Co.• 246 N.T. 244, 158 N.E. 508 (1927): St, Louis·San FranciSCO n,'. Co. l". Supe· rior Court, 290 P.2d 118 (Okl.1955). In addition other jurisdictions have recogn1zed the doctrine, but have not applied it as yeL Rice ,'. Salnier, 80 A.2d 175 (D.C.Mun.App.1952); Hagen l". Viner. 124 Fla. 74i.. 100 So. 391 (1936): Banunlall l". Woltllck, 12!J Ind.App. 98,122 N.E.2d 622 (1954): Mooner l". Den· ver &: R. G. W. R. 00., 118 Utab 807, 221 P.2d 628 (1950). But see e.g. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. T. Wiggins. 7i Ga.App. 756. 49 S.E.2d 909 (1948): Chapman T. Southern R,.. Co.• 230 S.C. 210. 95 S.E.2d 170 (1956). See also Barrett, Tbe Doctrine of Forum Don Conveniens. 3a CaUf.L.Rev. 380 (1947); Notes. 42 CaUf.L.Rel". 690 (1954); 4 St. Louis U.L.J. 198 (1900); Anno., 48 A.L.R.2d BOO. . For authorities from five states wbich bave expressed willingness to adopt the doctrine. and from eight states which have rejected the doctrine, see Traut· man, Forum non Conveniens In Washington-A Dead Issue?, 35 Wash.LRev. 88, 93-94 (1960). Wisconsin bas adopted the doctrine by statute. Foster, Expanding Jurisdiction over NOnresidents, supra I 83 note 47, at. 11.


Third Sub-Chapter (The Convenient Forum): "Will the Court Take Jurisdiction?"

by policies of "convenience" and "comity", have developed in three separate lines of cases, phrased in terms (a) of the doctrine of ''forum non conveniens"; (b) of the court's right to stay proceedings pendente lite, or refusal by it to enjoin the prosecution of foreign law suits; and (c) of a rejection of a "foreign cause of action" as (1) barred by a statute of limitations, (2) "penal" or otherwise contrary to the forum's public policy, (3) concerning the internal affairs of a fOreign corporation, or (4) extinguished by either party's death. In some cases of this type, dismissal may be precluded by constitutional command or legislation U 38).

§ 84. According to the now prevailing analysis, a court's decision to adjudicate a case is reached on four levels. Having first assured itself of the procedural capacity of the parties before it (§ § 12 ff.); having, secondly, ascertained the "jurisdiction" of the state over the parties and over the subject matter under international or constitutional law (§§ 26 fi.); and having found, thirdly, that the state has "exercised" this jurisdiction by conferring competency upon the court (§ 25); that court, unless in turn pro-

hibited by law U 38), may still refuse to "take" jurisdiction. Current texts and much of the case law purport to distinguish two types of rules providing for such refusal: those tliat authorize the judge of a state "having" jurisdiction in his discretion to decline to "take" it, as, e. g., under the doctrine of forum non conveniens (§ § 35-37); and those exclUSionary rules of the common law, constitutional full faith and credit, or an agreement of the parties, which compel dismissal (§ § 39 ff) •




(1) History and Concept
§ 35. Now'adopted by the federal courts 1


Gulf on Corp. v. Gilbert, 830 U.S. 501, 67 S.Ct. 839 (1947,. Concerning the doctrine as applied br the federal courts, partleularl,. 10 connection wIth the right to transfer under Judicial Code § 1404a, see Bart and Wechsler, Tbe Federal Courts and the Federal System (1953) 969ft'., 978ft'.: Braucher, The Inconvenient Federal Forum. 60 Barv.L.Rel". 908 (1947): Barrett. Venue and Service and Process in the Federal Courts, "; Vand.L.Rev. 608 (19M): Note, 56 Yale L.J. l234 (1947).

122· :




§ 35



likely future, scope only if projected against its history, which in this country is closely tied to that of jurisdiction.3 We may distinguish three stages in this history: As long as American courts, unhampered by later constitutional prohibitions (§§ ZT, 30), were free to extend their process against absent defendants by whatever procedure the statute prescribed, their jurisdiction seems to have been limited primarily by considerations of convenience. This made unnecessary a corrective doctrine of forum non conveniens. Thus, in suits between and against aliens courts would ordinarily assert their jurisdiction chiefly if the plaintiff would otherwise remain without an adequate remedy;" and in certain cases New York follows a similar practice today.a

At the end of· the nineteenth century, for reasons explained elsewhere, personal jurisdiction came to be limited constitutionally under the "Pennoyer rule" to those courts able to reach the defendant by personal service within the state (§ 27). The resulting inconvenience to the plaintiff was alleviated~ however, by his right under the "transient rule," to obtain jurisdiction without regard to any contact of the court with the c~ by virtue of his mere "catching" of the defendant within the territory of the court (§ 30). It was apparently at this stage that the inconvenience in tum resulting from this rule to the defendant, caused the adoption of a new corrective, the doctrine of forum non conveniens, which has permitted the court invoked to decline existing jurisdiction in its discretion.6 With the current breakdown of the Pennoyer requirement of personal service within the state both as to individuals and corporations (§ § ZT, 33), the transient rule is becoming increasingly dispensable. Thus the criteria of personal jurisdiction have, to a growing extent, become identical with the tests usually applied under the forum non conveniens doctrine. 1 In the light of this analysis

.-\s to the Scottish predecessor of the doctrine. the plea of fonlm non competenfl. Which 'vns applicable to Ctt• .;es of both nOIle.'(i:.tence lind nonexercise of jurisdiction, see Barrett. The Doctrine of Forum lion Com·enlens. :m Cnlif.L.Re\". 380. asi (1047). $ee also Glbh. The Internationnl Law of Jurisdiction in England nod Scotland (1926). See e.g. Gardner v. Thomas. J.l Johns. 134 (N.Y. 1817). As to this practice of enrly American courts lacking the "benefit of the Latin phrase," see Barrett. supra note 3. at 38i. n. :~R: Bmucher. The Incon\"'enlent Federal Fonlm. 00 Han·.L.Re\"'. 008, OUff., mGt (1941); Pliler. Jurisdiction In Actions hetween Foreigners. 18 Harv.L.Rev. 325 (1005). See also InCra note ~; supra § 30 note 35.

it seems likely that, within the foreseeable future, legislation will lead to a reunion of the two now sup~ementary concepts of juris.. diction and forum non conveniens under a law of interstate competency in the con.. venient forum (§ 25). Such legislation could follow an emerging practice of admiralty and New York courts 8 to condition dismissal upon the defendant's submission to the jurisdiction of the most convenient court.9 In addi.. tion payment by the defendant of the plaintiff's counsel fees could be exacted. to Until the conclusion of this development it remains necessary, however, to analyze the typical bases of the exercise of the court's discretion. Interstate federal practice, is, of course, largely determined by the courts' power to transfer inconvenient cases under Section 1404 (a) of the Judicial Code. Reference must be made in this respect to books and articles on Federal Jurisdiction.lt The pres134 X.E.2d 5.14, 538 (1056). note i.

ent disCUSSion is limited to admiralty cases in which transfer will less frequently be in issue and certain selected types of land cases in state and federal courts.
(2) GroWlds of Inconvenience

Admiralty. Admiralty courts have administered what in effect has been a doctrine of forum non conveniens much longer than land courts. U Even in matters competency over which is clearly conferred upon them by the Constitution or congressional mandate. 13 admiralty courts have always exercised discre.. tion in assuming or declining jurisdiction and have thus succeeded in developing something very close to a common law of forum conven.. iens.
In the first place, in contrast to the practice prevailing in land courts, which have often been criticized for expending a dispro .. portionate time and effort prior to reaching the merits of the case. l ' admiralty courts ap-parently have always been prone to give.con.. siderable weight to these merits in reaching their jurisdictional decision. us And secondly,
for the theme of the present ebapter Is the permissibility of "transfer In the federal courts in the absence of personal jurisdiction." Comment, 61 Colum.LBev. 002 (1061).
12. Cannda Uniting Co. v. Pnterson Steamships, 285 U.S. 413, 52 S.Ct. 413 (1032): lInson v. The Sbip Blaireau, 2 Crnnch (6 U.S.) 240. 263 (1804); Comment, Admiralty Suits Involving Foreigners, 31 Tex. LRev. 889 (1053); Bickel, The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens as Applied in the Federal Courts in l[atters of Admiralty, 35 Corn.L.Q. 12 (1050); Coffey, Jurisdiction over Foreigners in Admiralty Courts, 13 CaUf.L.Rev. 03 (1925); Dunlap, A Treatise on the Practice of Courts of Admiralty In Civil Causes of l[arltlme lurlsdictlon (1850): Conkling, The lurisdiction, Law nod .Practice of the Courts of the United States In AdlUirn1ty and lIaritime Causes (1848): Benedict, The American Admiralty, Its Jurisdiction and Practice (1850).

See also supra § 25


Wendel \'. Hoffman. 259 App.Dlv. i32, 18 ~.Y.S.2d 96. app. dlsm. :!84 S.Y. ~. :!O ~.E2d 664, 2S6 ~.Y. 601. 3i N.E.2d 59 (19-11); Ivy v. Stoddard, Hi S.Y.S. 2d 469 (Sup.10:);». Such safe~ards are particularly Important In \'ie\v of the possible lapse of the second court'S litatute of limitations. For an admiralty case, ~ ~wift &: Co. Packers v. Compnnia COlombiana de Carlbe, 3.10 U.S. 684, 697, iO 8.Ct. 861. 860 (1050). Se also Anderson v. Delaware, L. & W. R. R., 18 N.J.llisc. 153. 164, 11 A.2d 601, 612 (1940): l[outzouris v. ~at. Shipping &: Trading Co.• 106 F. SuPp. 482, 484 (S.D.N.Y.1061). Foster, Place of Triru etc., 44 Harv.L.Rev. 41, 50 (1930); infra note 33.


York courts wlll ordinarily decline jurisdiction on foreign rorts in suits between nonresidents (while granting an nbsolute jurisdictional right to und agnJnst residents). $ee rhe line of CllSes from llolony v. Dows, 8 Abb.Pr. 316 (l8aO), to De la Bouillerie v. De Vienne. 300 N.Y. 60. 89 N.E.2d 15 11049): White \". Borton & l[. R. R.. 283 App.Dlv. 48'1. 129 N.Y.S.2d 15 (1054): Ivy v. Stoddard. 147 N. Y.S.2d 460 (Sup.Ct.1053): Taylor v. Interstate lIotor Freight System, 300 N.Y. 633. la2 ~.E.2d 878 n05fJl: Bullock v. Tnmiami Trail Tours, Ine, 7 111sc.2d lOB, 162 :"f.Y.S.2d 69 (Kings Co. 100.). U. S. citizens wlll be protected. Anderson \". BOAC. 144 F.Supp. 543 (S.D.N.Y.l936). ·See in general dono., 48 A.L.R. 2d 800.850 (1956'. See also Flalz v.lloore, 353 S.W. 2d 1-1 (TeLCiv..App.l002).


For a significant illustration of this function ot the doctrine see Elliot ,'..Tohnston. 202 S.W.:!d 5S9 (l[0.1056). where jurisdiction concerning a Kansas automobile accident between Kansas residents. hased upon tmnsient service (effected With the help of "a fellow who hod heen keeping check on rhis boy as to his whereabOuts"), was declined on the court's own motion. in part because tbe plaintUl'. In his choice of forum, may have been inJIuenced by "the repnted largesse" of lIissollri jories. Cf. Comment, 10 Vnnd.L.Rev. 438 (195;). See also e.g_ Nee v. Dillon, 09 U.S.App.D.C. 332, 239 F.2d 953, 900 (1056).

9. Vargas v. A. H. Bull Steamship Co., 25 N.l. 203, 135 A..2d SST (1951), cert. den. 300 U.S. OCSS, i8 S.Ct. 545 (1958). . But see Bill v. Upper lIlsslssippi Towing Corp.. 252 lllnn. 165, 59 ~.W.~d 654 (1958) (dismissal on condition that defendant submit to snit In another jurisdiction, reversed because defendant was Dot subject to personal se"loo In a second forum as required by the doctrine of formn non convenlens). See ~ote. 43 lllnu.L.Rev. 1199 (1959). 10. Such legislation would have been offered by Senate Blll No. 1060, passed by the California LegIslature In 1953. which failed to receive executive approval. See Price v. Atebison, T. 4r: S. F. Ry. Co., -12 Cal.2d 571, 600. 268 P.2d 451, 411 (1954) (dissent). See also Intra I 55 note 22-

Concerning suits hy nGnresldents agninst foreiJnl corporations, see X.Y.Gen.Corp.Law i :!25: Fldan v. ",\.ustral American Trading Corp., 8 lllsc.2d 508, 168 N.Y.S.2d 27 (195i) i Ginsburg v. Hearst Publishing 00.• 5 A.D.2d 200, 110 ~.Y.S.2d 691 (1058), aJf'd 5 N.Y.2d 894, 183 S.Y.S.2d ii. 156 ~.E.2d iOB (1959); Comment. 26 Fordh.L.Rev. 534 (19a.).

7. Judge Learned Hand anticipates such a development at least In federal cases. Latimer v. S/A Industrlas Reunldas F. llnta1'llZ1:o, li5 F.2d 184, 186(2d Clr.1049), cere. den. 338 U.S. 861, 70 S.Ct. 141 (1040). SC!e in general Barrett. Venue and Serviceof Process in the Federal Courts, Suggestions for Reform, 1 Vand.LRev. 608, 632 (1954). Refusal. to review decisions on motions to dIsmiss, however desirable because of "much time and expense. already devoted to the cnse," is not conducive to the creation of uniform standards in state cases. Peterie v. Thompson. 11 Ill.App.2d 100, lOT.

13. U.S.Const. Art. III, I 2: 1 Stat. i6 (1189): 28 U.S.C.A. § 1333. See Black, Admiralty Jurisdiction, Critique and Suggestions, 00 CoI.L.Rev. 259 (1050) ; Gilmore and Black, The Law of Admiralty (1951) 18, 3514. See supra note 7.

. 15.· See e. g. W1l1endson v. Forsoket, 29 Fed.Cas.l288, II. Hart and Wechsler. The Federal Courts and the No•. 11,682 (D.C.Pa.1801): Thomson v. The Nanny. Federal System. (1953) 968ft. Particularly relevant 23 Fed.Cas.l104. No. 13,984 (D.o.S.C.1805); ~D




'§ 35



something like a mandatory jurisdiction has presence in this country;" lack of a foreign in effect been recognized in what is perhaps consul's readiness to grant relief;25 and nonthe most important type of - case, namely applicability of foreign law II have been given suits for wages 18 under the Seamen's Act.n decisive weight. Discretion in the assump1 Also, suits by United States citizens will prob- tion of jurisdiction under the Jones Act· ably rarely be dismissed in the exercise of in alien seamen's suits against aliens for personal injuries will often be exercised in terms sound discretion. IS of the applicability of the Act itself.1S Otherwise, the following factors have typiIn general, even in cases not involving seacally induced admiralty courts to exercise their discretionary jurisdiction: Termination men,29 dismissals are comparatively rare of the voyage in the United States;18 unjust where the defendant fails to show "that he discharge without pay;to undue deviation will be unfairly prejudiced, unless the case from the voyage agreed upon;" lack of an- be removed to some other jurisdiction," so other forum for the plaintiff;!! or the mas- as where witnesses and records are abroad ter's cruel behavior.!3 In addition, plaintiff's and dismissal would not unduly inconvenience the plainti1f.31 Such prejudice will not
~. Tbe Ship Blalreau. supra note 12; Ret?ckas T. VYJrln Steamship Co.• 193 F.Supp. 259 (D.C.R.I. 1960). 16. See e.~. Lakos \". Sallarls. 116 F.2d 440 (4th Clr. 1940) i Bilbao \'. MIS Ciudad de Ibague. 159 F. Supp. 720 (E.D.N.Y.195;). Bickel, supra note 12. at ~. would treat jurisdiction of all wage suits by seamen as mandatory. 17. 41 Stat. loo8 (1920). 48 U.S.C.A. I 50i (1932). The Act app1i~f; "to seamen on 10rei!m TCAAels "'hile In hnrho1'l' of the Unitt'd States." Rttc! In ~nernl EhrenzweiJ:. l"'rn~stns and Yiannopoulos. American' Greek Prh'ate International Law (100i1 44ff.; Morrison, The Forchm Seaman and the Jones Act, 8 Miami LQ. 10 (1054).


See e.g. The Balcyon. 32 F.Supp. 8 (E.D.N.'r.194O).

25. Compare Th(> Troop. 118 F. 709 (W.D.Wash.l902); In re Amalia. 3 F. 052 (D.C.Me.l880): fcilh Mc· Quade \". Compana de Vapores San Antonio. S. A.,

be seen in the mere fact that a foreign court would have decided the question under a law Dore favorable to the defendant,S2 especially "Where a foreign statute of limitations has run. 3S On the other hand, the plainti1I's interest in having his case adjudicated under ,American law may be a sufficient reason for the assertion of jurisdiction ;3. and his unwillingness or inability to appear for oral ex'amination is not a ground for the dismissal 'of his libel. S5 In the exercise of the court's ,discretion foreign claims to exclusive ju-risdiction will in general be disregarded.S8 The question whether Judicial Code § 1404 (a), providing for transfer of the case to a more convenient forum, is applicable in ad"JDiralty, was in doubt for some time,3' but must probably now be answered in the affirm.ative.S8
.32. KloeckDer Reederei und Kohlenhnndel. G.m.b.B. T. A/S Bakedal. supra note 80. See Gilmore and Black, Tbe Law of Admiralty (195i) 730. But d. Chemical Carriers \". L Smlt &: Co.'s lnternatlonale Sleepdlenst, 154 F.Supp. 886, 88D (S.D.N.Y.1957).
33. Oastillo~. Ar~onaut Trading Agency. 156 F.Supp. 398 (S.D.N.Y.19S;); The Fletero T. Arias. 200 F.2d 26; (4th Clr.1953). cert. den. 346 U.S. 89;. 74 S.Ct. 220 (1953); St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. \". The

131 F.Supp. 265 (S.D.N.Y.19S5): The Ester. 190 F. 216 (E.D.S.C.I011)' See DJso Romero ,'. Interna· tional Terminal Operating Co.. 142 F.Supp. 5iO (S.D.N.Y.l95G).
26. See e.g. Dederzikas T. The Athos. [195U] "1dn.l\lar. Cus. 3m (Or.19:H1. 27. Merchant Marine At't of 1920 [41 Stat. 100•• 4(1 'C.S.C.A. § 688) § 33. ~l'e Gilmore and Black, The Law of Admiralty (1957) 270fr.

Non-admiralty. Those.cases generally referred to in support of an early non-admiralty rule of forum non conveniens are not conclusive. 39 Since discretion has come to be used to some extent in the application of the general transient rule (§§ 30 f.), courts have not, and may never have" time to develop a predictable practice; and little more can be said than that u a court will not exercise jurisdiction if it is a seriously inappropriate forum for the trial of the action so long as an appropriate forum is available to the plaintiff." 40 But two situations typically arising in international cases, merit further analysis. One typical situation in which some generalization seems permissible is that of jurisdiction over aliens, within the test suggested by the Supreme Court under which the plaintiff's choice is not to be disturbed unless the balance of convenience is strongly in favor of the defendant.'1 Location of witnesses or records in another state, applicability of a foreign law and other circumstances have sometimes, but not always,u induced courts to dismiss.·3 No such dismissal will of course be granted if the alien defendant has himself
titlon of Bacl..-mnn. 122 F.Supp. 896 (I).C.Del.Um4}: I.e Mee \". Streekfus Steruners. 00 F.Supp. 2;0 (E.D. Mo.1051); Arro\\"head Co. \". The Aimee Lykes. 101 F.SuPJJ. 805 (S.D.N.Y.lOOO). 39. Cf. Gardner \". Thomas. 14 Johns. (N."I.) 13-1 (1817), J'efuRiu~ to "ext('nd" a jurisdiction gh'e!1 to the staif by the "la\\' of natlont:". See also Brinley \". Avery. Kirby 25. 26 (Conn.1786), perbaJ)!' the earliest reported case on the subject. 40. Starr~. Berry. 25 N.J. 5i3, 138 A.2d 44 (IntiS}: Rest. Second. Tent. Draft No. 4 (195;) I llil': Annos.. 48 A.L.R.2d SOO. 850 (1050). Statutes mal" limit competency on grounds of inconTenience. See N."I.Gen.Corp.La", f§ 224f. (suits against foreign corporations by 'resIdents and nonresidents). Where the alternatiTe foreign court is "immedinte)y contiguous". jurisdiction will ordinarily not be declined. Loftus~. Lee, 808 S:W.2d 654, 661 (Mo. 1958). 41. Gulf on Corp. T. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501. 50S. Gi S. ct. 839, 843 (1947): Lesser T. Ohevalier. 188 F.SuPlJ. 330 (S.D.N.'r.1956). 42. Cf. Bata \'. Bat&, 804 N.Y. 51. 105 N.E.2d 623 (1952). /,,' 43. Compare Giles T. Western Air Lines. 73 F.... Q/'" 616 (D.C.Mbm.l947) tOUh MaziDski v. DjpY'"


Swift & Company Packers l'. Compania Colomhiann de'Caribc, 330 U.S. 6&1. 69;. ';0, S.Ct. 861. 800 (1950).

19. See e.g. Pntterson \'. The Bark Eudorn, 190 U.S. 169. 23 S.Ct. 821 (1903) (\va~esl: Remnrd ,'. Creene. 3 Fed.Cas. 279. No. 1,349 (D.C.Or.1o.4) (damnges).

See e.g. The Gazelle. 10 Fed.Cas. 12;, No. 5.289 (D.C.Mass.185S): Becberdass \". Ambardass, 3 Fed. Cas. 13. No. 1.203 (D.C.Mnss.1871). But see Keramiotls \". Basma Companla Maritima. S.A.. 1;6 F. Supp. 269 (S.D.N."I.1959).

Lauritzen l'. LR1'l'eD. 3·m C.S. wI. 73 S.Ct. 921 (19531 (Cubnn port). S(!(' alf;() e.1;. Ball~n \'. A. S. n. SS. Y. Endhorl=. 1:;:' F.Supp. 3S' (S.D.X.'r.1!mi) (abonrd 1orel~ T~l in C. S. \\,Qren:l: Arent'io \'. The S. S. Ciudnd de BoJ;!otA, 155 l .... Supp. 5!l(1 (S.D. N.Y.1957) (same. and relief a\"allable abroad I: Der· endson \". RederlnktiebolUet "010. :m. F.2d 13r. (2d Clr. 1958,. celt. den. 358 U.S. 895. 79 S.Ct, 156 , (1958).

Republica de Venezuela. 100 F.Supp. 272 (S.D.N. Y. 1952). But cr. Sklbs A/S Abaco. A. A. &: N. T. Ardeshlr B. Cursetjee &: Sons. 133 F.Supp. 405 (S.D.N.Y. 1955) (jurisdiction refused for wnnt of equity defl)')ite the running of the forelJrn statute of limitations, stressing plaintiff's failure to bring timely foreJgn action). 34. Taylor ~. Atlantic Maritime Co.• 170 F.2d 597 (2d Clr.1950); Kyuakos ,'. Goulandrls, 151 F.2d 182 (2d Clr.1945). But see Lauritzen T. Larsen. 345 U.S. 571. 574, 73 S.Ct. 921, 92-1 (1953) (Jones Act held Inapplicable where the only forum contact was the Signing of papers In the U. S.).
35. Byam~. American Export Lines, 213 F.2d 221 (2d Clr.1954) (lIbellant in Bombay). 36. Ct. Lauritzen ~. Larsen, supra note 34, at 590. where the exclusive effect of a Panamanian statute was doubted in view of Tennessee Ooal, Iron & R. R. \". George. 233 U.S. 354, 34 S.Ct. 58i (1914). That last case. however. involved an interstate conflict. b OhemIcal Carriers \". L. Smit & Co.'s lnternatlonale Sleepdlenst, 154 F.Supp. 886 (S.D.N.i.1957) the coun even ignored a prorogation agreement. Infra

29. See 1n general Ehrenzwelg. Fra~istas and Yiau· nopoulos, op.clt. supra note 1;, at 52ft'.
30. Charter Shipping Co. \". Bowring. Jones &: Tidy. 281 U.S. 51S, 518, 50 S.Ct. 400. 401 (1930); Kloeck· ner Reedere1 und Kohlenhande1, G.m.b.B. T. AIS Bakedal. 210 F.2d 754 (2d Clr.1954). app. dlsm. 348 U.S. SOl (1954). St>e aIM Soclednde Braslleira de Intercambio, etc. ~. S. S. Punta del Este. 135 F.Supp. 394 (D.C.N.J.1955). But ct. Wm. B. Muller & Co. \'. Swedish American Line, Ltd .• 224 F.2d S06 (2d Clr. 1955). cert. den. 850 U.S. 903. 76 S.Ct. 182 (1955): Beitner T. Zim Israel Navigation Co•• 152 F.Supp. 8 (S.D.N."I.l95;). dismissing suilS between alien non· residents. Cf. States Marin~ Lines, Inc., T. Tbe M/V Kokel Maru. ISO F.Supp. 255 (N.D.Cal1960).


See e.g. Moran T. Baudin. 17 Fed.Cas. 721. No. 9785 (D.C.Pa.1788).
Compare e. g. Koziol T. The Fylgia. 230 F.2d 651 (2d Clr.1956). cert. den. 852 U.S. 82;. 77 S.Ct. 40 (1956); Nakken v. Fearnler &: Eger.137 F.Supp. 288 (S.D.N."I.1955); Wm. B. Muller Ii Co. T. Swedish Am. Line. 224 F.2d 806 (2d Ctr.1955); 10Uh The Atlantic Ooast T. Atlantic Freighters, 140 F.Supp. 36; (E.D.Va.I954). aft'd on other grounds 232 F.2d 66S (4th Cir.1956). See also supra I 80 note 88.


37. Puget Sound Tug

23. See e.g. Werburg \". Tbe St. Olaff. 29 Fed.Cas. 591. No. 17,357 (D.C.Pa.1790) (deviation and cruel~).

31. Poutos T. MeDe Grande Oil Co., 123 F.Supp. 5;7 (S.D.N.Y.l954).

« Barile Co. ~. The Go Getter. 106 F.Supp. 492 (D.C.Or.1952). 38. Kinsman Transit Co. ,'. Dunham TowiDg &: Wrecklng Co., 122 F.Supp. 911 (N.D.Ohio 1953): Pe-




invoked the jurisdiction of the American court..... Where dismissal would force .an American plaintiff into the court of a foreign country, forum non conveniens will ordinarily not be applied..a$ In Burt v. Isthmus Development CO.,'&8 the court required for such application "positive evidence of un~allY extreme circumstances" resulting in manifest injustice to the defendant. Such an extraordinary case will probably be assumed where the American plaintiff had acquired the cause of action from an alien for the very purpose of avoiding dismissal of the suit."" Indeed, in such case, if his plea of forum non conveniens were denied by virtue of such acqUisition, the defendant may well cI~m an unconstitutional impairment of Foreign Commerce..&8 Borderline situations may arise where the plaintiff is held not to sue "in his own right." .&9
102 (W.D.Pn.loan. See nlM ~ehleslnJre~ v. 'Itnlll~ll Unc. lltC.. :m:J ~. Y. O!)..l.. Ylf; X.~.:!~ lID f1tm~) ; I:;bruutltsel\ Co. \'. Ullyd Hrnl'Iliero lll.trunonio ~Il· cionl1l. :)5 F.Supp. HO (S.D.X.Y.ID-10). SUIlP

§ 36


In the converse situation of alien plaintiffs there is little hope of finding a guidepost in

the case law unless we are willing to concede that courts will 'generally be led by the assumed merits of the cause of action.50 That an alien has no constitutional right of access to American courts has been specifically held.lSI This would seem to follow a fortiori from the lack of such a constitutional right in the case of American citizens,SIS but can hardly be based on the consideration that "parties do not enter into civil relations in foreign jurisdictions in reliance on our courts. tt G3 In most decisions dismissing suits by aliens' against American citizens or other aliens, there is stress on the fact that the alien plaintiff had an adequate remedy abroad. M It may perhaps be concluded, therefore, that in the absence of such a remecorporation held the corporation,. &: :;;hlppers' InH. Al1strnlle Line. Lenrnetl Hnntl.

dy the allen ~ find the American court open against both American citizens GIS and other aliens,lS6 unless th~ court should find its docket too crowded to·undertake what it may con.. sider "an unwarranted burden on our taxpayers." 31 This conclUSion is supported by occasional decisions by which the dismissal was conditioned Upon the alien's actually securing the foreign remedy..os
b. LIs

to refer essentially to a right of See also United s!at~ llercllants' ro. v. .\lS Den Non;ke Atrlca og n5 F.2tl 3f)'l (2d Cir.193.1), per J.; Xote, il Hl1rv.L.Rev. 732

§ 36. Stay of domestic proceedings. Not infrequently, two suits are brought by the same plaintiff on the same cause of action in two different countries or states. I In what is probably the majority of these cases the plaintiff thus seeks to put pressure on the de. fendant. But his motive may be entirely legitimate, as where he desires to have his case tried under a more favorable law or more speedily or more properly, or where he finds property in another state, Upon which he will wish to levy.

44. Xor enn nn nUen plaintiff prevent defendant's recourse to pretrlnl procedures on In'ounds of Incon\'enience. V. O. llnchinolmpoHt \'. Clark Equipment Co 11' F R D ~ (S.D.. 'l.Y.lD51): Sociednd Inter· ~;hIO lr: .\.. B. \". Irving Herman Inc•• 66 ~.Y.S.:!d

cr Ueicb '(. Xational Union FIre Ins. Co.• 114 F. Supp' ')02 ':!O3 1~.D.TelC.1953): Lntimer \'. S/A intl~tri~ n;unidns F. lIatarnzzo. 1m F.2d lSl12d Clr.10010), cert. den. 338 U.S. S6~. iO .S.Ct. !4~ (~.D-I9): and eo nom. 91 F.Supp. 469 (S.D.~.Y.lO"O). mere incon,'enience [0 tbe non-citizen is not a ground for refusing jurisdiction" (at 472). See also Swift & Company Packers v •. Companla Colomblana de Carlbe, 339 U.S. 684, 691, iO S.Ct. 861, 869 (1000) (admiralty. supra): Wheeler v. Societe ~atfona1e des Cbemins de Fer Fran~is, l~ F.Supp. ~ IS.D.~.Y.lD52); Knigbt v. Bolivar, 156 F.Supp. 561 (S.D.~. Y.195i) : Comments. 103 U.Pa.L.Re'{. 830 (195;;): :!5 U.ChLL.Rev. 311 (1958). 46. Burt v. Isthmus Development Co.• !U8 F.:.2d 353, :lSi (atb Clr.l0M), cert. den. 349 U.S. 022, .S S.Ct. 661 (1055).
See Xote. 103 U.PaL.Rev. 830, 832 (1f>"'<>5). .~t. Universal Adjustment Corp. ,', lLldland Bank. 281 llass. 303. 18-1 ~.E. 152 (1933). ~ut see \Va~er v. Braunsberg, 5 A.D.2d 564, 1.3 N.Y.S.2d ;)~ (1958). 48. See intra § .ro notes 430'. 19. Stewart v. Godoy·Sayan, 153 F.Supp. 544 (S.D. N.Y.l95j) (stockholdem' suit for looting of Cuball 47.

50. Conlraal e. g. De Sairigne v. Gould, sa F.Supp. 210 (S.D.N.Y.I049), atf'd li'j F.2d 515 (2d Clr.l049), cert. den. 339 U.S. 012. 'i0 S.Ct. 5i1 (1050), declinIng jurisdiction over a $400.000 suit by a French woman against an American citizen tor services rende~ during the German occupation ot France: 117d~ In re De Gbeest's Estate, 362 lIo. 634, 243 S.W.2d sa (1951), Involving a. bona tide loan under similar circumstances. 51. Heine v. New York Lite Ins. Co.• 50 F.2d 382 (9th Cir.l03t). But see nlso Wilson. Access·to-Court ProviSions in United States Commercial Treaties, ~1 Am..J.lnt.L. 20 (1053); Baritcb, ConfUct Law 10 Unlted States Treaties (1956) 28t'f; supra § 13 notes 4tr.
52. See e.g. De Sairigne v. G~uld, supra note Vaulty Fair Mills v. The T. Eaton Co.. 234 F_d 633, 645 (2d Clr.I956). cere. den. 352 U.S. 811,. 1'i S.Ct. 06 (t056).
53. Cuba R. Co. v. Crosby, 222 U.S. 473, 480, 32 s.oer 132, 133 (lOll), relIed on In Heine v. New York Llta Ins. Co•• supra note 5L 54. Of.
~ Oerro de Pasco Copper Corp. v. Knut; Knutsen. O.A.S., 181 F.2d 090 (2d 01r.l951); Tsft· siDalds v. Simpson, Spence & Young, 00 F.Supp. 578 (S.D.N.Y.1950); Jonassen v. U. S., 103 F.Supp. 8~ . <E.D.N.Y.l952); Johannson v. O. F. Ahlmark & 00-..10i F.Supp. 10 (S.D.N.Y.I052). See also v. Larsen. 345 U.S. 571. 'i3 S.Ct. 921 (1953): Campodis v~ Onassis, 2 lllsc.2d 234, 151 N.Y.S.2d 39 (1956)J •

Internationally, there is no agreement con-' ceming the. treatment of such cases. France It and England 3 in the practice of
55. Ct. Vandam v. Smit. 101 ~.H. :IDS. 148 A.2d 280 (1950). per Kenison. Cb.J.; Gon7.nIC's \'. Dnmp!lkslsk Dania A. S. The Dllnvig, 108 F.Supp. Dog (S.D.N.Y.

their courts, and Italy in her legislation,. have generally expressed their prevailing preference for their own 'courts by refusing to stay their Proceedings pendente lite. Germany,:5 AUStria, 8 and Switzerland,1 on the other hand, will grant such a stay if a judgment of the foreign court Will be entitled to domestic recognition and enforcement. AccorcHng to an opinion erroneously held abroad, American courts generally refuse to grant a stay in favor of foreign proceedings.s This opinion is certainly incorrect with regard to sister state proceedings. Their en.. forceability under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution will, in effect at least, promote willingness to grant the stay." But this willingness probably exists also with regard to proceedings in foreign countries of both the common Jaw and ciVil Jaw orbits. In fact, in almost aU of the pertinent cases found, which deal with identical Parties and causes of action,10 the American court decided to stay its proceedings pendente lite.ll In
ed. 1o-;;S) lOi911'.

o( the case low, see Dicey'S Contl1ct ot Lt\ws (ith

4. Code Proc.Civ. Art. 3. 5. Riezler -453.



1882. :llg. 20,161. Xo. S!).1O: 1Uf'7.I~r 45-1.

Cf. DeciSion of the :-;npreme C01trt ot l(nrch 28


58. See Taylor \". Interstate l(otor Freight System, 300 !'l.Y. 633. 132 N.E.2d SiB (056): Rata \'. Batn, 30-1 ~.Y. 51, 105 N.E.2d 623 (1052); .\nno.• -:18 A.L.n. !!d 800. 836 (1956). Ct. Xorrh Brnnl'h PrOducts. Inc., v. Fisher, 109 U.S.App.D.C. lS'l, $I, F 2(1 611 (1060), cert. den. 365 U.S. 827, 81 S.Ct. il3 (l001). 57. Interstate Steel 00. v. l(ancbester LJnes, 145 N. Y.S.2d i5-l (Mnn.Ct.N.Y.105;;).

862If. 8.

Knllmnnn, Anerkennun.: IIRcl \'oUstreckung nusliindlscher ZlvUurtelle (If).l6) 36, Do 38; 2 Scbnitzer

cr. RIe7.ler 4a;;. relying on 2 Beale, Conflict of Laws (1084) 1420, lUi bis sole authoritr. 9. ~ee Anno.• 19 A..L.R.2d 301.

58. Galhan Lobo Trading Co. SlAv. The Dfponegoro. 108 F.S1tpp. i41 (S.D.N.Y.I052). See ll1so supra § 34 notes Stl. I. Concerning the problem of identIty, see Infra § 63. From the boundless foreign literature on this suI). jett, see e.g. Eke16t. ProcessueJla Gnmdbegrepp och allgemllnna Processprinciper (lDS6) 99ft'; Riezler

In Pesqllem Del Pncifico. S. de R. L. v. Superior (1949~. wblch . Is seemin~J'y to the contrary, tbls identity bad not. been p~ve(L See also Barn v. Hili, 35 DeI.Ch. 4O'T, 130 A_d 150 (1058), nlrd Storey _ , 163 A.2d 493 (DeI.l0BO). cert. den. 368 U.S. 064. .~1 S.Ct. 1026 (1961) (nlso referring to foreign COllrt's deJay). And ct. GOSSCbaJk T. Gosschalk, 138 A.2d 'i14 (N.J. Super.1058).
Court, 80 CIll.APP.2d 738. 201 P.2d 5ii3

2. Clunet 1896, 402; 1891, 328; 1891, 55!; 1924,


3: See e.g. Cox v. Mitchell, 1 C.B,>\lS. 56, 141 Eng. Rep. 134 (1859); lIeHenry v. LeWis. (l882] L.R. 22

Cb.n ( Iv. 397: Penlvian Guano Co. v. BOCk'WOldt,
l883) L.R. 23 Ch.Dlv. 225.
For a tull anaJYSis

II. Oakland Truck Sales v. United States, 149 .5'_ SuPp. 002 (Ct.Cls.l95l) (Germany):. Oppenbelmer Y. Cnrabaja Rubber .\ NavigatIon Co., 145 App.Div. 830, 130 N.Y.S. G81 (1911) (England): Perkins v. Benguet Consol. l:lJDJag Co., 06 CaJ.App.2d ;'20, 132' P.2d iO· (1942). cert. den. 319 U.S. ii4. 63 S.Ct 1435 (1943) (Pbllfpplnes); A.. P. YoungblOOd, Inc. v. Banca CommerclaJe ltallana, 1i'i App.Dlv. 491, 164 N.Y.S.




§ 36



one case the court decreed that this stay should be limited to a reasonable period U The stay in federal courts pending proceedings in a state court of the same state between the same parties and concerning' the same or a related cause of action, is more properly dealt with in texts on federal jurisdiction.13 Such proceedings, state or federal,14 pending in other states, while not a ground for the abatement of the forum action, may induce the forum to stay its own case.u Indeed, the Supreme Court has urged "that one court should defer action
285 (1917) (Italr). See also Catopodls v. Onassls, 2 MIsc.2d 234, 151 NS.S.2d 30 (N.Y.Co.1056) (Frant'e) (forum non conveniens, dismissal). But see Kloeck· ner Reederel und Kohlenhandel, G. m. b. H., ,'. AfS Rakeda!. supra § 35 note 30.

on causes properly within its jurisdiction Wltil the courts of another sovereignty with conCUITent powers, already cognizant of the litigation, have had an opportunity to pass upon the matter." 10 And the highest court of a state has found it "so well established as to preclude the necessity of -citation that, as between courts of concurrent and coextensive jurisdiction, the one whose jurisdiction is first validly invoked by the institution of a proper action has the power, to the exclusion of all other tribunals, to adjudicate upon the whole issue and to settle the rights of the parties." U Refusal to stay, however, does not entitle the court in which suit was first commenced, to refuse full faith and credit to a judgment recovered in the later

court; to and that, on the other hand, a stay may well be granted in cases of less than compulsory potential recognition. t1 Although stays will in general be granted only in favor of proceedings commenceciearlier,t2 occasionally even a subsequent foreign action may constitute grounds for a stay.t3 In any event the length of the stay must be reasonable.u In in rem actions, "if the effect of the first proceeding under the law of the first state is to place a lien upon the res, the second action will be abated, or at least stayed pending the. outcome of the first suit, so as not to disturb the lien. As between States of the United States, this result may be required by full faith and credit." til
See Gcneral Electric Co. ,.. Federal Employees' DlstrlbuUng Co., ]32 CaLApp.2d 739, 282 P.2d 937 (1900) (abuse of discretion In stay, where foreign proceedin~ bad In tUrD been sta3'ed because -of forum action). Ct. Col: '\". Col:, 234 lIiss.. 88fi, 108 So.2d 422 (1009). 21. In Simmons ,.. Superior Cout:t, sup.'ro bote l5, the forcilm action concerned forum land as to which the forci~n decree "'af: not entitled to compulsory recGJroition. See EhrenzwelJ:. 2 Surver Callf.Law (1950) 122; infra § 58, notes 1ft'. Successive lIt1lmtlon Il~alnst different defendants for the Invalidation of patcnt!': I,; partlcularlr troublesome. See e.g. Pierre v. Allen n. Du Mont Lnhoratorles, 15(1 F.Supp. 23; (D.C.Dcl.l00i). In the lIJrht of Triplett '\". Lowell, 20i U.S. 638. 56 S.Ct. 045 (1936): Comment, 10 StanU.Itc\·. 3Gi (1958). See also In re Western Airlines, 140 A.2d m (DelCh.l95S). 22. U.' S. Industrial Ohemicals '\". Carbide & Carbon Cbemlcals Corp.. 49 F.Supp.345 (S.D.KY.]943I. See also Perkins T. Iienlluet Consol. lIinln!: Co., 55 Cal. App.2tl 720, 132 P.2tl iO (1942), cert. den. 310 U.S. 'ii-!. 03 ~.Ct. 143:i (1D42); SerraUes Y. Viader, 149 N.Y.S.2d li5 (N.Y.Co.1054), aff'd 28ii App.DI,.. 947, 189 KI'.S.2d 896 (1055): Culhertson '\". Midwest Uranium Co., 132 F.Supp. 678 (D.C.Utah 1955); Bulldog Electric Products Co. T. Cole Electric Prod· ucts Co., 5'; F.Supp. 336 (E.D.N.Y.1944).

Oppenheimer T. Carabaja, etc. supra note 11. See also Dulles v. Dulles. 369 IJa. ]01, 85 A.2d 134 (1052), upboldlnjr an Injunction against transfer of assets, entered upon consent, betlveen American and British subjects, to continue until flnnl conclusion of FreDch divorce proceedings.· See also infra note 23.

13. See Mottolesc v. Kaufman. 176 F.2d 30] (2d Clr. 1949); Bclersdorf & Co. v. McGoher. ]R'; F.2d 14 (2c1 Cir.1951): FCMru80n v. Tabah, 288 F.2d 00:;, 672 (2d Cir.l001): Hart and Wechsler, Thc Federal Courts and the }'ederal Srstem (19:i3) 10:;';. 10iOIf. Comment, 24, U.Chi.L.Rc\·. 543 (]g,~i); Note, 8i l1inn.L.lte\·. 4(J (1052): Anno., 10 A.L.n.2d 301. Concerning Ule Stllr of state proceedings pending a federal suit, see Anno., 00 A.L.n.2d ~. 14. For cases InTol\,lng two federal suits, see Kan· sas Clry S. n. Co. T. Uuited States, 282 U.S. 760, 61 S.Cc. 304 (1931): United States \'. 75.2 Acres of Land, 43 F.Supp. 345 (W.D.Pa.1942): Old Charter Distillery Co. T. Continental Dist11llng Corp., 5" F.Supp. 528 (D.C.Del.]f).J:i); MinneflOta Mining &: lUjr. Co. \'. Technical TnlX' Corp., 123 F.Supp. 40; (N.D.m.1954); American Chernie:1l1 Paint Co. \'. Thompson Chemical Corp., 244 }'.2d 04 (9th Clr. 1957).

Although comity to the sister state is often mentioned as the ground for stays,18 the more appropriate rationalization is the court's desire to protect the defendant from vexatious and harassing litigation. Accordingly, the primary test for the court's decision is the question whether on principles of res judicata and full faith and credit (U 45ff.), the foreign judgment will be recognized in the state of the forum for the purposes of both enforcement and bar,19 except that such stay may be denied in any event if the forum would offer the plaintiff a more expedient relief than the foreign
16. Dan '\". Burford. 339 U.S. 200. 204, 70 S.Ct. 58i. 590 (1050). See also Doerr '\". Warner, 24'; Minn. 98, 76 N.W.2d 005 (1956).

Toleration of foreign proceedings. Here-, tofore two ways have been discussed in which American courts may express their preference for foreign adjudication: the refusal to take jurisdiction under the doctrine of forum non conveniens (§ § 34f.); and the stay of proceedings until the completion of proceedings pending elsewhere. In either case courts will be prone to decline jurisdiction if'the expected foreign judgment would be entitled to enforcement in the forum. If such enforcement may .be expected, there may exist a real interest on the defendant's part in the avoidance or discontinuance of foreign litigation. American courts have, therefore, asserted the right, from time to time in their discretion, to enjoin the plaintiff from proceeding elsewhere,lo in order Uto suppress undue and vexatious litigation." 11 This practice, which has long been established in Anglo-American equity jurisprudence,u apparently lacks an equivalent in civil law procedure.J9 In the following typical situations an American court will be willing to enjoin foreign proceedings which involve the same parties and the same cause of action: (1) where the foreign suit was brought by a resident of the forum state against anThe earlier practice seems to have been to the contrary. See Mead v. Merritt. 2 Paige 402 (N.I'. 1831), disapproved in Cole ". Cunnln~bam. 133 U.S. 10i, 10 S.Ct. 260 (1890). See also Olel Dominion Copper Co. T. Bigelow, 203 Mass. 159. 221. 89 N.E. 103. 220 (1900), aff'd 22u 'U.S. Ill, 32 S.Ct. 641 (1912). 27. Gage v. Riverside Co., SO F. 984 (S.D.CaU89S) (England). See also Barver Aluminum, lne. T. American Cyanamid Co., 203 F.2d 100 (2d Clr. 1953), cert. den. 345 U.S. 964. ;3 S.Ct. 949 (1053) (Venezuela); Bavuso '\". Angwin, lOG Ean. 400, 201 P.2d 1057 (1949) (Interstate). As to tile court's right to order institution of, or defense to, foreign proceedings, see Rest. Second, Tent. Draft No.4 (1957) § 95. For a seemingly mechanical test of priority, see Nat. Equipment Rental, Ltd., T. Fowler, 28; F.2d 43 (2d Clr.1OO1). 28. Cf. Story, Equity Jurisprudence (ard ed.lSi7) §§ 899, 900, with English authority; Chafee and Be. Oases on Equity (4th Ed 1958) 120ft". i Dicey'S Conflict of Laws (7th cd. 19~) 1079tr. 29. Of. Riezler 299.

15. "Wise judicial administration, glTlng regard to conseft'ation of judicial resources and comprehen. sive disposition of litigatioll, does not COUllSel rigid mechanical solution of such problems." Frank. turter, J .. I\:erotest Mfg. Co. T. c-Q-Two Fire Equipment Co., 342 1:'.S. lBO, 183, 72 S.Ct. 210 221 (10u2). Compare e. g. Simmons v. Superior Cou;t, 96 Cal.App.2d 119, 214 P.2d 844 (1950); with Farm· land Irrigation Co. T. Dopplmaier, 4S Cal.2d 208, 308 P.2d 732 (1057). See also Evans '\". Evans, 186 S.W.2d 271 (TeLCh'.App.1945): International Nickel Co. v. Martin J. Bar~, Inc., 204 F.2d 583 (4th Cir. 1953); Conrad v. Buck, 21 W.Va. 396 (1883): Seev. ers '\". Clement, 2S Md. 426 (1867); Rest. 5 619 j Anno., 19 .A..L.R.2d 301.

17. Brownewell '\". Columbus Clay Mfg. Co., 100 Ohio St. 324, 142 KE.2d 511 (195n See also Bredin T. Bredln, 140 F.Supp. 182, 136 (D.C.Virgin Islands 1956).

But see Barber '\". Barber, ,324 P.2d 746 (Cal. App.lfl5S), re,.·d on other ground 51 Ca1.2d 244, 331 P.2d 02S (1958).

18. See e.g. Simmons '\". Superior Court, supra note 15.
19. See Landis v. North Americ~ Co.. 299 U.S. 248, 5i S.Ct. 103 (1036); Le,.,. '\". Pacific Eastern Corp., 154 Misc. 600, 277 N.I'.S. 659 (1935) (pany Jdentlty); Slade v. Dick1nson, 82 F.Supp. 416 (W. D.Mich.1949) (Identity of causes of act!oo).

23. Kelley,·. Bausman, 98 Wash. 6S6, 168 P. 181 (191,;): Nichols v. Nichols, 12 Bun. 428 (N.Y.lS77). See also Le'\"!, v. Pacific Eastern Corp., 154 Mise. G5ij, 2ii N.Y.S. 659 (1935) (only two days' priority). 24. Landis v. Nortlt American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 57 S.Ot. 168 (1936) limits the Ume to the decllJlon in first instance; supra note 12. 25. Best. Second, Tent. Draft No.4 (1957) '17, clting Sanders v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 292 U.S. 190, 64 S.Ot. 677 (1934): Wallace T. McConnell, 13 Pet. (38 U.S.) 136 (1839); Farmers' Loan &: Trust Co. v. Lake St. E. R. R., 177 U.S. 51, 20 S.Ct. 564 (1900).
~Ig Conflict of ~J


Ch. l:.

§ 37





other resident of that state to evade a pro.. tection provided for the latter under forum law,30 as e. g. where the defendant would. thus lose exemption or immunities under a forum statute; 31 or where the foreign suit would be vexatious in other respects; 3: (2) where a court of equity for other rea.. sons feels that a concurrent action at law might jeopardize the effectiveness of equitable relief whether or not the plaintiff is a resident of the state;33 (3) where a court has undertaken to ad· minister an estate and a concurrent action could affect the unitary administration, though an injunction will not issue as to prop· erty located outside the state. 3 -&
·ti ti by ID]unC ons The recogm on 0 f such" foreign courts will be dealt with below (§ 51).



§ 37. Barred by statute of limitations. The forum will ordinarily apply its own stat· ute of limitations by virtue of a traditional "procedural" characterization. But an action may also be dismissed if brought within

See e. g. Pere 1Iarquette R. Co. v. Slutz. 268 1lich. 388. 256 :S.W. 458 (1034) (domestic \"enue stntutc): ~ew York, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. lIatzinger, 136 Ohio St. 211, ~ N.E.2d 349 (1940) (same). For a decision against the party seeking the Injunction. see Sharp \". Learned, 182 1[158. 333. 181 So. 142 (1038), err. overrd. 182 1Ilss. 344, 182 So. 122 (1938); Sanders \". Yates, 215 Ga. 218, 100 S.E.2d 730 (1959). Compare Jacobson v. Jones, 236 ll1ss. 640, 111 So. 2d 408 (1050).

the statutory period of the forum, on the ground· that· it is limited by that law·under which the cause of action is adjudicated. American courts and legislatures have thus in effect abandoned, at least in part, the gen.. era! procedural characterization of statutes of limitations, and adopted the Continental rule treating such statutes as matters of sub-1 stance. "Borrowing" and other statutes have been enacted to create a minimum of certainty in this field But whethe~, in. the amence. of such statutes and constitutional restraint (§§ 38ff., 54), the court, in a particular case, will apply its own or another law, is a com· plex question of choice of law, more fully to be dealt with in the Second Part (§ § 160163) . The state of the law is unsatisfactory, prediction difficult.: Two tendencies, how.. ever, may facilitate this prediction though they must probably be considered lDldesira.. ble. In the first place, whenever possible, "courts have been willing to treat limitations of time as standing like other limitations and cutting down the defendant's liability wherever he is sued." 3 Thus, foreign limiI.

tations have been held to preclude recovery
if constituting a "condition of the right",'

but had to yield .to the shorter lex fori even
if so construed where the forum statute pur-

ported to cover foreign causes of action.1S ''Borrowing statutes" 6 have reached the same result in many states, at least as to non· resident plaintiffs (infra), by barring the action under both the lex fori and the lex loci.' Similarly, forum tolling statutes have been held inapplicable to foreign causes,8 and
Cniform Law Commissioners ~m to follow the S4me policy. :"Ilntional Conference of Commission. ers. Handbook (10';)6) 326. First Tentnti\"e Dmft of C'niform Statute of Limitations of Foreign Claims Act. § ~(n) (Ilpproved 1057, see Vernon. 5upm note 2). 4. Rest. § 605. In this sense the limitation is snid to relate to the "right" Itself if it is (1) conmlned In the statute creating the CRuse of action: (2) "!lpeclally IUrected at a qualUlcntlon of the right" (Rest. § 605, comment a), though not contained In that statute; (3) relnted to 11 statutory cause of action unknown to the common law; (4) trellted as substantive in non-conflict cnses; or (5) considered a.c; e!'ltabli!'lhing a constitutional rh:ht. See e. g. llaryland ex reI. Thompson ,'. Els Automotive Corp.• l·m F.Supp. 44.l (D.C.Conn.1D!',o). On possible constitutional implications. :olee Vernon, Report. etc., 3 Wayne L.Rev. 187. 100 (1057). S. Orlnan v. A. J. Lindemo.nn & Hooverson Co.. 23S F.2d i2 (ith Clr.lD5R). But see also California v. Copus, 158 TeL 100, 309 S. W.2d 221 (1058). cert. den. 356 U.S. 96i. i8 S.Ct. 1006 (1058): Edison v. ~wis, 325 P.2d 055 (Okl.lo-~).

foreign lire-institution" statutes have in turn been held unable to affect forum limita. tions.9 And the shorter limitation has been applied even against sister state judgments.lo In accordance with the same trend the parties to a contract have been permitted to agree upon a foreign statute of limitations where it is shorter than that of the forum,u -except where unequal bargaining power has led the courts to deny recognition to such stipulations in adhesion contracts.u Another important practical factor, undesirable to be sure, but crucial for counsel to realize, is the law's inclination to protect citizens both as plaintiffs and defendants. Thus, if the defendant is a reSident, the law is likely to give him the benefit, as against a nonresident plaintiff, of either the foreign or
mission). See also Hutto \". Benson. 212 F.2d 349 (6th Clr.l054), cert. den. 348 U.S. ~:n. i:i S.Ct. ;j2 (105-l) (date of accrual of action): Young v. Hicks, :!SO F.2d SO (8th CI1'.I057): Bertha Bldg. Corp. v. ~ut. Theatres Corp., 2-18 F.~d 1'\.13, 840 (2d eire 1057), cerro den. 3;j6 U.S. !l:m, i8 S.Ct. 7i7 (l958): Steele v. Wiedemann :\[achine Co., 153 F.Supp. 83.1 (E.D.Pa.loon: Wade, 'i Vo.nd.L.Ite,·. 755, i58 (1054); XOte, 41 lllnn.L.Rev. 489 (1957): Vernon, supra. note I, Ilt 2O-l. See also infra § 161 notes 0,11.

31. .\nno.. 6 A.L.R.2d 005if. Whether an upired statute or· limitations of the forum state is such an exemption Justifying· injunction of another suit In 11 state wUh a longer stntute, seems doubtful. . Id. at 008fl'. . 32. Poole \". lllsslsslppi Publishers Corp., 268 lIiss. 3M. 44 So.2d 461 (1D5O). See also Applestein v. United Board & Carton Corp., 3G N.J. 343, 173.\.2d 225. 232 (1961) (derivative stockholders' sutt). 33. Typical cases are those in whIch an equity court has taken jul'isdiction for the cancellation of an instrument or the rescission of a transaction, and enjoins foreign proceecUngs at law on such instrnment or trnnsactlon. Anno... 6 A.L.R.2d 005, 033ff. See nJso Doerr v. Warner, 247 lIinn. 98, 76 N.W.2d 505 (1056).

3 Rabel, 475ft'. ; Ailes, Limitation of Actions nnd the Conflict or Laws. 31 lIlch.L.Rev. 414 (1033); Loren,;en 352: Vernon, Report etc., 3 Wayne L.Rev. 181, 204 (1057); Comment. 35 Tex.L.Rev. 05 (1056). In the law of arbltmtlon, a limitation relating to the contract to arbitrnte Is for the coort (jurisdictional), while it is for the arbitrator if reiating to the obligation itself (substantive). Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Harrlsons & Crostleld. 204 F.2d 366 (2d Cir.l053), cert. den. 346 U.S. 854, 74 S.Ct. 69 (1053). noted 38 lIinn.L.Bev. 264 (19M). See nlso infra § 160 note 1. Cf. Nordstrom. Ohio's Borrowing Statute of LimItations-A Quaking Qua~mire in a Dlsmal Swamp, 16 Ohio St.L.J. 183 (1055); Proyect. A. Study of the Uniform Statute etc., 4 Wayne !..Bev. 123 (1068) : National Conference of CommISSioners. Handbook (1056) 324; Vernon, The Uniform Statute of LimitatiOns of Foreign Claims A.ct etc., 4 St.· Louis U.L.J. 442 (1057).


See e. g. Pack v. Beech JJrcrn.ft Corp.. 50 Del. 413, 132 A.2d 54 (1957): Cope v. Anderson, 331 U.S. 461, 67 S.Ct. 1340 (1047): Burgert v. Union Pac. R. R., 240 F.2d 207 (8th Cir.10-37): Finley v. United States, 147 F.Sopp. 184 (N.J.I056); Greenble v. Xoble, 151 F.Supp. 45, R3 (S.D.N.Y.1957); Bertha Bldg. Corp. v. Nat'! Theatricnl Enterprises, 140 F.Supp. 009 (E.D.N.Y.I956); Smith v. American Flange & llfg. Co., 139 F.Supp. 017· (S.D.N.Y.1956); Calltornia Code Clv.Proc. § 361: N.Y.Clv.Prac.A.ct, f 13; Pa. 12 PurdODS Stnt. § 3D. In genernl, see ~ote, 33 Col.L.Rev. 762 (1035); intra § 161 notes. 2-15.

Si!tler \". Youngblood Truck Lines, 140 F.Supp. 61 (E.D.Tenn.lO.')7). See nlso Wbolesale Supply Co. v. South Chester Tube Co., 20 F.R.D. 310 (E.D.Pn.ll)u&) (same result under both laws).
~(cElmoyle v. Cohen. 38 U.S. 312 (1830): Blumberg V. Sllylor, 137 N.E.2d 696 (Ohio app.1955): Welch V. Downs, 1 DLApp.2d 424, 118 N.E.2d 51 (1054). See also Union National Bank v. Lamb, 337 U.S. 38. 69 S.Ct. 011 (1949); .:Ubert v. Albert, 86 Ga.App. 560, i1 S.E.2d 004 (1952); infra H G-!. notes 18if.; 56 notes 24f. .A. longer forum period may be excluded by borrowing statutes. But ct. Abonndandolo V. Vonelln, 88 So.2d 282 (Fln.l056) (failure to prove Sister state statute). See Paulsen, Enforcing the lIoney Judgment of a Sister State,. 42 Iowa L. Rev. 202, 214 (1967); Note, 4 Duke B.J. 71, 72 (1954).

I 0.

34. Anno., 6 .\.L.R.2d 005, 938if.

3. DRVis v. l[llls, 104 U.S. 451, 454, 24 S.Ct. 692, 694 (1904), per Holmes, J. Ever since the English Statute of Limitations of 1623 (21 Jac.l, c. 16), the policy fnvoring the statute has been strong. See Callahan, Statutes· of Limitations-Background, 16 Ohio St.B.J. 130 (1055); also intra note U. The

7. WIllle these statutes forestall forum shoppiDg', they also jeopardize those plaintiffs forced Into the forum by the rules governing personal jurIsdiction. Supra §f 21 if. But some flexibWty Is preserved by the uncertainty of rules of choice of law. Infra • 161 notes ~7. For the perbaps unique Kentucky rule, see Koeppe v. Great Atiantlc & Pacific Tea Co., 200 F.2d 210 (6th Clr.I957) (longer fOreign statute for beneftt of non· resident). 8. See e. g. Wentz v. Richardson, 165 Ohio 558, 188 N.E.2d 675 (1956). Conversely, the foreign tOlling. statute may be held applicable. Martinez v. lIIssonrt Pac. R. R., 296 S. W.2d 90 (Mo.1956) (tacit ad-


Hartford Accident &. Indemnity Co. v. Delta '" Pine Land Co., 202 U.S. 143. 54 S.Ct. 8M (1934); 6 Corbin. Contnlcts (1951) i69. On· the other hand, agreements extending the forum period of limitations have been'·held to violnte public policy. SeeN.Y. State L.Rev.Comm.Rep. [1947] 133. But ct. National Conference of Commissioners OPe cit. supra note 2, § 2(b) advocating validity in either case. See also infra § 41 notes 2, 26: § 161 notes 29-33; § 162 note 8.

12. See infra. § 161 note 31.



Ch. 1

.§ 37



the domestic statute of limitations which- gained at this point from a compariSon of -ever be the shorter.u If he is a nonresident, those few cases in which American courts be may, at least if the plaintiff is a resident, were called upon to apply statutes of limitafind the plaintiff obtaining the benefit of tions of foreign countries and have almost either the foreign or the forum statute, COnsistently favored the resident party.lt whichever be ~e longer.1« 1954) (decision for nonresident pla1Dtlff against resiAn analysis of interstate law with its great dent defendant). Possibly the lex fori Umltation bulk of decisions must be reserved for the wID be preferred over the statute of a state iD wbicll neither party is resident. McMillen T. Doug· Second PartU But some insight may be
13. For an early instance, see Pearsall v. Dwight, 2 Mass. 83 (1800). justifying application of the lex .forl against defendants in pan on the ground that the contrary rule "might be iDjurlous to our citizens" (at 89). Exceptions to the "exception" from the lex fori in 1avor of citizens of the forum state, bave been upheld as constltutlona1in Canadian Northern R.n. T. Eggen, 202 U.S. 553. 40 S.Ct. 40!! (1920). See also Moore T. Boschen. 93 F.Supp. 993 (S.D.N.T.l950); Warner T. Bepubllc Steel Corp., 103 F.Supp. 998 (S.D.N.T.1952l. For an analrs1s of this factor iD its beariDg upon ~c judicial treatment of a borro\\"lng .statute. sec KordstrOm. supra note 2Different considerations mnr app)r In diversltr eases In federal courts npplrlnJ: the stnte rule. Sec Smltb l'. Pnsqunletto. :loW F.2d 76:;, 700 n. 1 (]st Clr.1957); Hartford Accident &: Indemnltr Co. v. Eastern Air Lines_];:i:i. l-'.l'npp. 2O:i (~.n.X:r.1fl:ii) ("mnttcr of law nna not a matter of fairness").
Ct. PaJro v. Cameron Iron Works, Inc., 259 F.2d 420 (5th Clr., ]958).

Segregation in future research of these international conflicts cases may help in inducing the courts to give more equal treatment to residents of sister states.17 Contrary to public policy. t;nless the forum is compelled by a constitutional rule of choice of law to take jurisdiction over a foreign cause of action entitled to "enforcement" (§ 38), every court is free to decline jurisdiction on the ground that the claim brought before it violates its own public polIcy 18 or that of a "friendly country." 19 For a long time the enforcement of foreign statutory tort actions was in itself considered opposed to the public policy of the forum unless the foreign law was sufficiently similar to that of the forum.tO But to such an extent have such statutes become common that there has developed something akin to a statutory "common law." This law bas not only greatly reduced dismissal on grounds ·of public policy, but may even become susceptible to commands of full faith and credit,21 or it may be read into a foreign Jaw.t!! On the other hand, reference to public policy
17. Concernin~ constitutional control. see infra § 40, notes G. 15ft. 18. The Kensin~ton. 1~ U.S. 203. 22 S.Ct. 10!! (1002); Union TnlRt CO. T. GroRmnn, 245 U.S. 412. 38 8.<.'t. Hi (lfllSI; Griffin , .. McConch. 313 UJ\. ·ms. fit S.Ct. ]023 (1941); Note. 33 Col.L.HI'\'. !io.~ (]!l3.1 •. IncreaSing regard for forclJrn L'l\\'. inclndillj% In\\'s of foreign nations, mar gradunlly limit this prnetice and give pre\'alence to the ordinary choice of law. See e. g. Tropicnlt's. S. A. \'. ~l11orn. 7 l\Iise.2d 281. l(5G N.Y.S.2d 042 CN.'r.Co.l95G) (Cuban gambling debt); Wengler, t::ell('r die Mnxime Ton der Unnnwendbarkeit ansliindischer polltisc11er Gesctzc, luternatlonnles Hecla und Dlplomatie (1000) 101: supra HInote 38, G note 38; infra § 120. 19. See Regazzoni T. K. C. SeWa (1944), Ltd., [1957] 8 W.L.lt. 752, 3 All E.n. 286 (Bouse ot Lords) (enforcement denied to foreign contract violating law of another member of tbe Commonwealth). See in general Dicey'S Conflict of La,!s (7th ed. 1958) 704ff. 20. Infra § 211 note 25. 21. See infra § 88 at notes Uft'. 22. Caldwell l'. Carmer Trading Co., 116 F.Supp. 548 (D.C.HawaU 1953), granting a claim for a wrongful death that had occurred on Salpan during the illterval between the abolition of Japanese la\\, and the enactment of the territorial code, both ot which recognized such claims.

las Aircraft Co., 90 F.Supp. 670 (S.D.CaU950). In admiralty, applying a doctrine of laches, selection of the "analogous statute of llmltatiODS" may be based on "1aimess", and probably favor the plaintiff iD a personal injury suit. Apica v_ Pennsylvania Warehousing &: Safe Deposit Co., 101 F.Supp. 575 (E.D.Pa.1051). Sec also Boumlas T. Atlantic Maritime Co., Ltd., 220 F.2d 152 (2d Olr.l955): Levinson T. Deupree, 345 U.S. 64S, 73 S.Ct. 914 (1953); Gilmore and Black, The Law of Admiralty (195i) 034t. On the seem1Dgly iDsolvable dUDculties c:rehted by the Klaxon doctrine (supra § 9) in C81IeS of transfer under Judicial Code § 1404(a), see Currie. Change ot Venue nnd the Conflict ot Laws. 22 "C. Cbi.L.Re\·. 40:; (19w), commenting on Headrick l'. Atchison, T. &: S. F. ny. Co., 182 F.2d 805 (lOth Clr. 1950). S('(> also Hargro\'e v. Louisvllle & Nash\'lJIe n. It, 1G3 F.Supp. 681 (W.D.K~.1957). Of. Currie, Change of Venue antI the Conflict of Laws: A Betraction, 27 U.CbLL.Be\'. 3..n (1960).

is not infrequent to explain refusal to "enforce" foreign causes. of action. even where the exclusiveness ·of .the forum law alone would make such reference dispensable.a Except for actions for wrongful death caused by injuries inflicted in a sister state (§ 38), transitory actions have not yet been held subject to a compulsory jurisdiction. In particular no such compulsion has been imposed with regard to direct actions against insurers) which would lie under the law of the place of injury 2. but are considered contrary to the public policy of the forum. P
23. See e. g. Urdn l'. Pan American Worlfl Air\Va~, 211 F.2d 713 (5th Cir. 1r04) (BraslUan tort claim excluded under local workmen's compensation act). Af'. to workmen's compensation. sec also B 9 notes 23ff. ; 40 notes 22tr.. 40ff.; 63 notes lStr. ConcemlnJ: claims for alienatlou ot affections ane~edlY committed In n RilZter state, ~ec Gainef'. ,'. I'nlndextcr, 15~ F.Supp. 638 (W.D.LIl.1057); infra § 215.
24. Snch statutCf'. bal'e been enacted in I.oulsiana [Ln.Ue\,.Stnt. I 22.655 (lOOn)]; nhode Island [B.I. Gen.Laws 15 Zi-i-liI. (1flilG)); anC\ Wisconsin [Wis. Stat.Ann. § 260.11(1) (100'i)). Sec MacDonald, .DireCt Action against LiabiUrr Insurance Comp~nies. (lO:ii] Wis.L.ltel'. 0]2 (]!lS7); Risjord. ·Conflict 01 1.nwlZ Appllcnhl(> to the ~tandnTd Autnmohllc IJlahil· ity Policy. [10::;;] Wls.L.Ue\'. USU. 598 (19:;7); Notc. 41 Mlnn.L.Ucl'. 784 (I!l:;i): supra ~ 15 notes 43fT.; § 33 note 52; infra § 202 notes ~. 25. Morton l'. Mnrrland Casunlty Co., 1 A.D.2d l1G. 14S N.Y.S.21) u24 (Ina:;) Isuit in New York undt'r J.ouiRinnn dlrt'ct action statute aJtninst Mor~lnnd Insurer authorized In Loulsiann and New York, dil'mls.~d on tIlis alternatil'c ground). atr'd on otiler j%ronnd. 4 N.T.21] 488, 1ill N.E.2d 881 n9.iS). :-lee Kote. 25 Fordh.L.He,·. 333 (10501. Set' nlRO Torcazo T. Statemn, 141 F.Supp. 7mJ {!I:.D.Ill.10001 (Wisconsin); Lieberthnl v. Glens Falls Indemnitr Co., 31(j }tUcll. 37. 201 l\.W.2d 54i (1946) (WIsconSin). But see Collins l'. American Automobile Ins. Co. of St. Lollis. 230 F.2(1 410 (2d Cir.195G), cerL dlsm. 352 L. S. 802, 7i S.Ct. 20 (1950) (reaching a conclusion as to New York policy contrary to the Morton case. supra); Kertson t". Johnson, 185 Minn. 591, 242 N.W. 829 (1932) (Wisconsin); Burkett v. Globe Indemnity Co., 182 Miss. 428, 181 So. 816 (1938), overruled on other grounds McArthur T. Maryland Cas. Co.. 184 Miss. 633, ]81J So. 305 (1989). Procedural charac· terizatlon of the foreign direct action statute Is also frequently used to justlfr denial of its applleab1llt~. Penny v. Powell, '!'ex. - , 347 S.W.2d 601 (1961); Cook T. State Farm Mutunl Ins. Co., t~.S. MIss. - , 128 SO.2d 303 (1961), cert.den. - , 82 S.Ot. 170 (1961); Mutual Service Casualty Ins. Co. Y. Pr\1dent Mutual Casualty Co., 20 llJ.App. 2d 429, 166 N.E.2d 816 (1000). See generally infra I 202 notes 50 et seQ.

14. See Infra notc lao For a proposal to app)y fomm lnw to nIl claims or domlcllinrles. scc Nntionnl Confcrence. op. cit. lmprn l10tr 2. ~ 21ft\. 8ec nl~ Unitccl States l'. Jacobs, lw F,supp. IS!! (D.C.N.J.lfl;ji) (forum law applied In Go\,ernwent"s fnl'or against Kew Tork corporation).

15. A random selection from recent eases shows (1)

decision against the non-resident plaintiff for a resIdent defendant under the lex fori (Krussow l'. Stb:rud. 33 W nsh.2d 28i. 20;; P.2d 03i (1949): Austrian v. WnUams, 198 F.2d OOi (2d Clr.1952), cert. den. S44 U.S. 900, i3 S.Ct. 32S (19:i2); State ex reI. Squire l'. Porter, 21 Cnl.2d 45, 129 P.2d 091 (1942), cert. den. 318 U.S. 7(5i, G3 S.Ct. CS31 (1943); State Comp. Ins. Fund l'. Proctor and Schwartz, 12i F. Supp. 427 (E.D.Pa.l9:;5)]: or the lex loci [Hangene v. Diamond, 132 F.Supp. 27 (E.D.Pa-1955), d'd 229 F.2d 554 (3d Cir.19:i6); Beuning T. Henkel, 138 F.Supp. 492 (W.DoN.C.l9M) (dictum), aff'd 239 F.2d 181 (4th Cir.1956)]; or both [Brown l'. Westport Finance Co., 145 F.Supp. 265 (W.D.Mo.1~)]; (2) decision for plalntlt! In suit between two nonresi. dents (Lips l'. Egan, 178 Kan. 378, 285 P.2d 767 (1955) (lex loci); Cbrlstian T. Kint, 87 F.Supp. 977 (W.D.Mo.1950) (lex loci)]; (3) decision for resident plaintUr agaiDSt nonresident defendant UDder l~.x fori [Lowry T. Int. Brotherhood, 220 F.2d 546 (5th Clr.1055)]. But see Albanese T. Ohio River.Frank· fort Cooperage Corp., 125 F.Supp. 333 (W.D,Ky.

16. A comment de"oted to this topic [85 TeLL.Rev. 95 (lD~(jI] lists tile following English and Amcrican cases aU of wbleb are reconcilable on tile Jrrounw., and perhaps only the grounds, suggested io the text: Dupleix l'. De Roven. 2 Vern. 540,23 Eng.Rcp. 950 (CI1.170;;) (alien plnintlfl'. domestic dcfendnnt-suit diflmI Il!=Pf) nUfler forum stntute); Huher T. Steiner, 2 Blng.N.C. 202, 132 Eng. Itep. 80 (C. l'. lS3ii) (t\\·o nlieu".: Wooo« Sclick Inc. ,'. ComptlJnlle Generale Transntiantlque, 43 F.2d 941 (2d Cir.l930) (domClltic plaintiff, alien defendant-suit allo\\'ed agnim~t foreign statute,; In re 'l'onkonogoff's Estate, 32 N. Y.S.2d 601 (Surr.1941) (allen plaintiff's "Sinister claim" ngainst resident defendant administrator, dismissed UDder foreign "substantive" statute). See also Sinal v. Lel'i, 208 Mise. 050, 144 N.'I.S.2d 316 (1955) (domestic plaintin', alien defendant, forum statute Inappllcable because defendant nonresident, foreign law not proved); Rutkln v. Belnfe1d, 22f} F.2d 248 (2d Clr.1956), cert. den. 352 U.s. 844. 7i . S.Ct. 50 (1956) (barred under .both statutes In suit between nonresident aliens). See also Goodwin v. Townsend, 197 F.2d 970 (3d Cir.19lS2) (Ontario statute not appllcable in suit between U. S. citizens); Lipton T. Lockbeed Aircraft Corp., 807 N.T. 775, 121 N.E.2d 615 (1954) (Egyptian statute not applicable between two '0. S. resJdents); Note, 40 Corn.L.Q. 589 (1955). Tbis rationale mar be traced as far hack as Story • 582 Oe% causae Where "the parties are resident wltb1D the jurlsdlct10n «luring all that period, so that It bas actually operated upon the ease"). . But see Goodrieb 242. See also, Dicey'S Confiiet ot Laws (7th ed 1958) 1092ft'.; supra J 6 note 13; Infra § 163 note S.







§ 37



However, the Supreme Court seems to as- sona! service cannot be obtained in the state sume that lack of minimum contacts may of injury, this practice may result in the prevent a state from applying its own statute plaintiff remaining without any recovery. which provides for such actions.28 It may This could be avoided, however, by the forum well be, therefore, that the existence of such applying its own law to out-of-state inju.. 33 contacts in another state may, as it does in ries with sufficient domestic contacts. the case of wrongful death statutes, compel A fortiori courts feel free to decline juris.. the forum to take jurisdiction over a claim diction over claims based on "penal" statbased upon a direct action statute of that utes other than for wrongful death, or on state.!1 In any event a sister state is free to "penal" common law rules of sister states.M take jurisdiction under the direct action stat- This result will obtain where a court decides ute of the place of injury.:!8 on the merits that the stockholders' liability Constitutional choice of law by the United statute of a sister state will not be "enforced" States Supreme Court seems to require the on that ground,33 though such a decision may forum to take jurisdiction over a claim based be couched in terms of dismissal for lack of on the wrongful death statute of the state of jurisdiction,36 or lack of •'machinery" .31 injury (§ 38). Nevertheless, jurisdiction can Federal courts may be reluctant to claim the apparently be declined if the forum considers same prerogative with regard to state cresuch statutes as upenal". If this were to be ated rights.38 done generally this would constitute a pecuAs will be seen below (p. 170), tax assessliar reversion to early law:!9 ·'long since dis- ments issued by the administrative authoricarded as . defensible" 30 Those. few wrong- ties of other states and not reduced to judgm . fuI death statutes, however, which have ~~- : merits (p. 305), will as a rule not be accord.. tained a r;terence .to ~e de~e~ of cuIpabil1- ed either full faith and credit or comity. It ty,31 continue to mVlte reJection.• by other. cond ' IS DClve t 0 muc h · derstanding to m.1sun states. Indeed, Rhode Island still refuses b this rule on the proposition that "tax application of such statutes.= Where per- S:tes" of other states will not be "enforced", in analogy to statutes of a penal na26. Wntson v. Employers Llnbillty Assurance Corp., ture. Not the law of another state is in is348 U.S. 66, i2, iii S.Ct. 166, 17'0 (1054), Infra § 010 note O. See also Perllck v. Country )[utunl Cns. Co., sue, but its administrative or judicial action.
214 Wis. 558, SO N.W.2d 021 (lOOn; Klabacka v. l[hlwestern llutual AutomobUe Ins. Co., 146 F.Snpp. 243 (W.D.Wls.1956); Note, 41 lInrq.L.Rev. 214 (105i). See nisO supra § 33 note 52.
33. See llnssachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v. United States, ~2 U.S. 128, ij S.Ct. 186 (1056), declaring applicable the federal mensure ot damages under the Federal Torts Claims Act. where the Injury 0ccurred In a state with 11 "penIll" wrongful death statute.

Internal affairs of a foreign corporation. The orIgin and gradual erosion of the "nonexistence" them;r of foreign corporations has been described elsewhere (§ 12). Remains of this theory formerly induced even those courts, which had recognized their ju.. risdiction over corporations found "present" in the state, to deny such jurisdiction where it would interfere with the corporation's lIin_ ternal affairs." 39 Only during the last few decades has it become settled that such denial of jurisdiction is based on a discretion to be exercised upon principles developed within the general doctrine of forum non conveniens.40 Interference with the internal affairs of a foreign corporation will be assumed, it is said, where lithe act complained of affects the complainant solely in his capacity as a member of the corporation, whether it be as stock holder, director, president, or other officer, and is the act of the corporation, whether acting in stockholders' meeting, or through its agents, the board of directors." U This somewhat vague judicial formulation has been modified by the suggestion that more helpful tests would relate to the type of relief sought. In addition there have been mentioned the amount of business done in
39. See e. g. Madden v. Pennsylvania Elec. LJght Co.•
181 Pa. 611, 31 A. 811 (1891): ~otes. 33 CoI.L.Rev. 0192 (1033): 31 lllch.L.Rey. 682 (1033): 42 Iowa L. Rev. 00 (1956); 46 CoLL.ReY'• .u3 (1046): Anno., 155 A.t..R. 1231.

the forum state; the size of property located . there; the residence or presence there of corporate officers or directors; and the location of books and records.,Q Instead of early considerations opposed to interference with foreign sovereignty,.a3 the court will now be moved by hardship that may be caused to the plaintiff if he were forced to sue elsewhere; '" by the need for centralized domiciliary administration; -'5 or by concern about the enforceability of the judgment sought.48 In the light of Williams V. Green Bay & W. R. R.,41 it would seem that the Supreme Court
42. Compare e. g. State ex rei. Wntkins v. ~orth Amerlcnn Land &: Timber Co., 100 Ln. R21. :n So. li::! IlnO'.!). witl.. Sanders v. Pncific Gamhle Hohlnson Co.• :.!.iO lUnD. :!6a. 84 ~.W.:!d !l10 (105;). Hee also Xewlllnrk l'. C. &: C. Super. Corp., 3 ~. Y.!!d ioo, IIi-! X.Y.S.:!«1 42. 14.1 X.E.!!d iOG (l05n; Note, :!!) Col.L.Rev. 008 (1!r.ID).


Co.. 56 F.!!d

See e. ::to Willlnmson v. l[ls.!~ouri·Kansns Pipe Line i'i03. r.oi (ith Clr.lD32); Note. a.1 Col. L.Rev. -492. -41).1 (10:1.1). cr. Ings l'. Ferguson, :.:8:! F.:!d 140 (:!d Cir. 1060). . Scholl v ••\l1en, :!31 Ky. n6. 126, 36 S. W.!!() 3:'>3, 3il8 (1931); l[nyer v. Oxidation Prod. Co.• 110 N.J. Eq. HI. 150 A. 377 (1032); Blnusteln v. Pan Amer· ic:tn Pet. &: Trans. Co.. 114 lllse. 601, 21 N.Y.S.211


651 (1940).

45. Boyette \". Preston l(otors Corp.• ::!06 AID. 240.89 So. j46 (1921); Lewnld v. York Corp.• 68 F.Snpp. 386 (S.D.N.Y.1046); Weiss v. Routh. 1.J0 It'.2d 103 I:!cl Clr.1D45): Kelley v. American Sugar Ref. Co., 130 F.2d i6 (1st Clr.l.943), cert. den. 321 U.S. i01, 1;4 S.Ct. i80 (1043); Lakeman Renlty Corp. v. Sunny Isles Ocenn Beneb Co.. 5 lUsc.2d 471, 160 N.Y.S.2d Wi (195;).
46. Conapare e. g. Hnngerford &: Terry v. Geschwindt. ::!-I X.J.Super. 385, M A..2d 040 (1953) (defendant sub· stantlo.lly a domestic corporation) with Rohlsen v. Latin .uoer. Airways. 65 N.Y.S.2d 644 (Sup.1046) (elections): or Harris v. Weiss Eng. Corp., 267 .!pp.D1v. 96, 44 N.Y.S.2d 643 (1943) (capital structure) ; ContiDentnl-l1ldwest Corp. v. Hotel ~her­ mnn, Inc., 131 IU.A.pp.2d 163, 141 N.E.2d 400 11957) (voting stocks). See also Blue v. Standard Coil Products Co., 117 N.Y.S.2d 858 (Sup.1052) (specific performance out-of-state. dictum). In Sanders v. Paci1lc Gamble Robinson Co., 250 Minn. 265. 84 N.W.2d 019 (1957), the court. ordering a Washington corporation to offer its books for inspection, found the trial court "warranted in nssnming that under the policy of comity the courts ot Washington would deter to its order." 47. WlWams v. Green Bay & W. R. R., 326 U.S. 549, 66 S.Ct. 284 (1946), denying motion for dismissal In New York bondholders' suit against Wisconsin corporation. Cf. Koster v. Lumbermens Mutual Cns.

27. See Comments, 51 Col.L.Rev. !!:S6, 262 (1051): 103 U.Pn.L.Rev. 74'5 (1951). As to real party in Interest statutes see supra § 15. 28. Chambless v. National Industrial Laundries, 149 F.Supp. 504 (E.D.Tex.I9';)1). See also Tennessee Coal, Iron &; R. R. v. George. 233 U.S. 354, 34 S.Ct. 581 (1914). 29. See e. g. Richardson v. New York Central R. R.• 08 ~Iass. 85, 91 (1861); and In general Rose, Foreign Enforcement ot Actions tor Wrongful Deatb, 33 lllch.L.Rev. 541> ~1~. 30. lUnor, ConJllct ot Laws (1001) 492. See also § 56 notes 27ft.

34. ct. Huntington v. Attrlll. 146 U.S. 657. 13 S.Ct. 224. (1892); James-Dickinson Farm lIortg. Co. v. Harry, :?f3 U.S. 119, 4i S.Ct. 308 (1921). As to paternity suits see supra § ::!6 note 11.

35. Infra § 148 notes 231f.

See e. g....Salonen v. Farley, 82 F.Supp. 25 (E.D. Ky.1049). See supra § 5 note 14-


lIass.G.L.A.nn.(l958) c. 220, § 20; Code ot Ala. (1960), tit. 7, § 123. llcGratb v. Tobin, 81 R.I. 415, 103 A.2d 795 (195-1). See Clark, Code Pleading (2d ed. 1941) 196.


38. ct. Salonen v. Farley, supra note 36; followed In Hartlleb v. Carr, 94 F.Supp. 219 (D.C.Ky.1D50); Tucker v. Cutler. 185 F.2d sua (6th Clr.l950), cert. den. 340 U.S. 933, n S.Ct. 401 (1950).

Burnrlte Colli Briquette Co. v. Riggs, 274 U.S. 208, 41 S.Ct. 5i8 (1921): Wettengel v. Robinson, 288 Pa. 362, 100 A. 673 (1021): Rogers v. Guaranty Trust Co., 288 U.s. 123, 53 S.Ct. 295 (1933): Lydia E. Pinkham Medicine Co. y. Gove. 208 llass. ;;3, 9 N.E.2d 5i3 (1937); Dudley v. Jack Walte lIinlng Co., 49 Wasb.2d 867,301 P.2d 281 (195i) (Injunction against rejection ot proxies); In re lIeyrowitz' Estate. 131 N.Y.S.2d 677 (Surr.105-l) (injunction against voting ot shares). In general see Comment, US CoL L.Rev. 2M (1958). But see Plum v. Tampax, Ine, 399 Pat 553, 160 A.2d G40 (1960), matntalnlng the distinction between the doctrine ot fornm. non conveniens and "mandatory dismissal onder the 'internal a1faJrs' doctrine." Id. at 552. 41. North State Copper Ii Gold MID. Co. v. Field, 64 lId. 151, 20 A. 1039, 1040 (lB).





§ 38




has gone all the way in discarding relics of the early doctrine, and is 'prepared to apply general principles of jurisdiction to all suits against foreign corporations. It would then treat dismissal as an exception rather than the rule, to be used "where maintenance of a suit away from the domicile of the defendant-whether he be a corporation or an individual-might be vexatious or oppressive." 48 But it remains to be seen whether the federal courts, in view of their obligation . to apply state law even to this question,49 will be able and willing to follow the Supreme Court.eo Extinction by party's death. Under the common law the death of either the injurer or the injured extinguished any action in tort, and no such action could be founded up, ,on the injured's death. These rules have now been modified in all states of the Union. The .-' conflicts problems frequently created by great differences in the statutes 111 are tradi": . tionally considered as pertaining to choice of law. But extinction of a cause of action upon death is in no way distinguishable from the jurisdictional questions revolving around statutes of limitations (supra). For once the court has chosen between the lex fori and the lex loci, the decision is in effect either to . take or to decline jurisdiction. And many courts will be found to talk in those terms.1I2
Co., 330 U.S. 518. Oi S.Ct, 828 (194i). upholding dismillsnl. by 1I!;lnJ;: the snme test. in a Xew York policy' holt1el's' snit a;:nlllst an Illinois corporation. 48. Wllliums v. Gl"een Bn~' « W. R. It.. 3:!G U.S. 549, w-i, GU S.Ct. 2&1. 280, 287 (194G). See also Hall v. American Cone &: Pretzel Co., 71 F.Supp. 200 (E.D, Pa.1947). 49. Weiss T. Routh, 149 F.2d 193 (2d Cir.1945); Sheridan ". American Motors Corp., 132 F.Supp. 121 (E.D.Pa.19:;:;). 50. Continued hesitation in the taking of jurisdiction appears in Skelly Y. Dockweller, 70 F.SllPP. 11 (S.D. Cnl.l947); Elb;worth v. Cnrr-CoD!ool. Biscuit Co., 90 F.Supp. 58U (lLD.Pa.19'50). 51. See Prosser, The Law of Torts (2d edt 1955) 705ff.: Clark, Low of Code Pleading (2d edt 1947) 193. 52. See e. g. Herzog , .. Stern, 264 N.Y. 379, 191 N.E. 23 (1934), cert. delL 203 U.S. 59i, U5 S.Ct 112 (1984): and In general Anno., 42 A.L,R.2d 1170.

If an action by the decedent was pending at the time of his death, most courts will take jurisdiction under their own "revival .statute" 113 even where the lex loci does not provide for revival of the action." This practice, while usually rationalized as based upon a procedural characterization, may be more convincingly explained by the courts' reluctance against applying a foreign obsolete rule in preference to their own progressive law, at least where the plaintiff is a resident. On this ground we can reconcile those decisions which apply the foreign revival statute for the benefit of local residents even where the forum law would leave them without a remedy.86



.-.~ ·~ rI
"!< ~:~

Jr'" i~





'T' ..;.

"matic reasoning may produce an undesirable result where the lex loci would deny a remedy while the law of the forum provides for survival.lS'I The California court has found it possible in this case to resort to the lex fori.1IB To avoid forum shopping this new and clearly desirable rul~ may -have to be limited to forum residents.s
144 W.Va. 24. lOG S.E.2d 107 (1958); Biggins V. Central New Enltland & W. R. Co., 155 Mass, 176, 29 N.E. 534 (1892); In re Daniel's Estate, 20S Minn. 420, 294 N.W. 465 (1940); Burg v. Knox, 334 Mo. 329, 67 S:W.2t1 00 (1933); Domres v. 'Storms, 236 App.DIT. 630. 260 N."f.S. S35 (1932) (perhnps Implledly overruled, Herzog ". Stern. suprn note 52); Davis v. Gant, 247 S.W. 67G (Tex.Ci'r.App. 1923); O'Rellly ,'. New York & No E. n. R .. 1n ItI. 888, 19 A. 244 (1889), See also MeJntosh v. General Chemical Defense Corp., Gi F.Supp, 03 (S.D.W.Va. 1946); Anderson v. Miller Scrap Iron Co.• 17n Wlf;. 521, 187 NoW. 744} (1922); Dombrowski ". Dunn. 69 F.Supp. 42, 44 (D.C'vt.I94G); nnd Woollen \'. Lorenz, as App.D.C. 389, OR F.2d 201 C19.'iS): Gray T. Bli~bt. 112 F.2d 600 (lOth Clr.1940l. cert. den. all U.S. 704. 61 S.Ot. 170 (1940); Muir T. Kessinger, 35 F.Supp. 11G (D.C.Wash.I940), rem'd on stip. 1:!1 F.2d 450 (9th Clr.1941), conceding the rule but reaching other results on different grounds. Contra Herzog ". Rt~rn. suprn nott' 52; Butcher ,'. Mnf. feo, 22ti F.2d 713 (Slth Cir.l9":;S); R~st. § 3.qo com, ment b; 2 Heall'. Contlict or La,,'s (193.'';) § 300.1: Goodrich § 101: Stumberg 180. For critical nnnlysis. see Shnvelson. SUM'ival of Tort Action~ in the Conlllct of Laws: A New Direction'? 42 Calif.) ... Rel-. 803 (1954); and particularly Currje, Sun'h'al of Actions: Adjudicntion "ersns Automation In the Conflict of Laws, 10 Stnnt.L.Re'l'. 205 (1958).




! .;.

Survival statutes which permit suit upon the decedent's cause of action are generally treated as "substantive" and therefore subject to the lex loci. This characterization will accomplish application of the progressive rule of the lex loci where the forum adheres to the extinction rule of the common law. And many courts have found little difficulty in thus favoring the plaintiff.M But dog53. Rucll statutes wblcb pro'\'hle for "re"l"nl of the nctlon" arc to be distillJ:UIshed from "sur"h'al" statute.c; whlcb pro,' Ide for "survh'nl of the cause of action," Tile distinction In conflicts cases may h<.' traced back to Bnltimore & Ohio It. R. Y. Joy, li3 t:.s. !!2f.i. 1St s.Ct. 3Si 0899): Martin's Adm'r ". Baltimore « Ohio R. ll., 151 1:.S, Gi'J, 14 S.Ct. 533 (1~). Sec Slun'elson, SUrTival of Tort Actions in tile Conflict of Laws: A :\ew Direction? 42 Callf.L.Itev. 803 (19l-1); Annos., oJ!? A.L.lt.2d 1170, 43 A.L.It.2d 1291. 54, lJage '\'. United Fruit Co., 3 F.2d 747 (1st Cir. 1925), re,,'d on other grounds. Northern R, R. T. ]Ja:;e., 274 'C.s. ro, 47 S.Ct. 491 (1927); Gordon T. Chlcngo, Rock Island and Pacific It R., 154 Iowa 410. 134 N.W. 10:»7 0012); Anstin's Adm'r V. Pittsbo~h, C. C. & L. R. R., 12:! Ky. 304, 91 S.W. 742 (1900). 55. United States Nat. Bank T. Bartges, 120 Colo. 31i, 210 P.2d 600 (1940), cert. den. 33S U.S. 955, 70 S.Ot. 493 (1900) (alternative gronnd). But see Allen T. Whitehall Pharmacal Co., 115 F.Supp. 7 (S.D.N.'l:. 1953); Rathgeber v. sommerba1der",112 N.J.L. 540, 171 It.. 635 (1934). " 56. Nelson v. Eckert, 231 Ark. 348, 829 S.W.2d 426 (1959); Tice v. Eo L DuPont de NelJl~urs &: Co••


§ 88. There was at one time some question as to the permissibility of discretionary dismissal by a federal court, of actions under federal statutes containing venue provisions. such as the Federal Employers' Liability Act or the Sherman Act1 This question has lost its significance since tOO court is now free in such cases to transfer the case to a more convenient district,% and can grant such 'transfers' "upon a lesser showing of inconvenience" , than that required for dismissal.3 State courts are now expressly permitted to dismiss suits brought under federal statutes,· provided that this dismissal does not discriminate against noncitizens." This is probably true even where the cause of action may thus be lost to the plaintiff under the statute of limitations.G But this general

. 04.~



See Baltimore « Ohio n. R. v. Kepner, 314 U.S. 44. G:! S.Ct. 6 (1941); Miles ,'. Illinois Central R. n .. 31u U.S. 60S, 62 s.et. 82i (lWZ). E" parte ColJett, 33; 1:.S. 0:;, O!l S.Ct.. 944 (1949,.


3. Nonvood ". Kirkpatrick, 349 n005). 4.


29,75 S.Ct. S44




57. For dlsmiss.11. Trudel v. Gagne. 328 Mass. 46.j. 104 N.E.2d 4Sf1 (Imi2): Orr '1'. Ahern, 10; Conn. 1;4. 139 A. 691 (1928) [approved Bohenek Y. Niedzwiecki. 142 CoDn. 278, 113 A.2c1 509 (19rt5)]: Yount ,', Na. tional Bank. 32; Mich. 342. 42 N.W.2d 1]0 (]OiiOI; Dalton ". McLean, 13i )Ie. 4, 14 A..2d ]~ (10.10); Sumner T. Brown, 312 Po. 124, 10i A. 31l) (1fl3.'i): Friedman ,'. Greenherg, 110 N.J.L. 402, IOn A. 110 (1933). See also Ormsby v. Chase, 290 U.S. 387, 54 s,Ot. 211 (1933) (pre-ErIe). 58. Grant ". McAuUffe, 41 Cal.2d 859, 264 P.2d 94-! (1953), per Traynor, J. See Sbavelson, supra note 56. Accord Ausmus ,'. Swearingen, 296 S. W.2d 8 (Mo.1936). But see Callf.L.Re'l'.Comm.Rep. [105;] J 5 [with CurrIe's de\'astatlng Cl'itle1sm, supra note 56]; Allen '1'. Nessler, 24i MinD.. 230, 7G N.W.2d 700 (1956); I{odriquez T. Terry, 79 Ariz. 348, 290 P.2d 248 (1955).

Missouri ex rel. Southern n. n. ", Mayfield. 340 U.S, 1, i1 S.Ct. 1 (1950). Cf. State ex reI. Soutl,· ern R~·. Co. ,'. Marfield, 362 Mo. 101, 240 S,W.2«1 lOG (1931l. cert. den. 342 U.S. Sil, 72 S.Ct. 10; (]!I51); Cotton ", LouisviUe nnd Nasbvllle R. RCo., 14 I11.2d 144. 152 N.E.2d 3S5 0958),
Dou~la$ , .. Xe,," York, N. B. & n. n., 279 U.s. 3ii. 4!1 S.Ct. 3;;5 (1929); JohnROn Y. ChicaJ;:o, n. & Q. U.. 243 Minn. 58. 60 N.W.2d 7G3 (19U-1): IUlmj;(!~ , .. Chlc:n~o Grl!l1t Western Ry., 2.ji Minn. 21i, 7; X.W.2d 17G (19:;(;): Maynard \'. Chicago & NortJa Western By., 24i M11m. 228, 7i N.W.2d 183 (1900).





Sec generally Corrie and Scbreter, UnconstittJtJonpl Discrimination in the Conllict of La,vs: Privlll"J{t.>:'1 nnd Immunities, 69 Yale L.J. 1323, 1379-1301 (1960). 6. Price ,'. Atchison. T. & S. F. n. n., 42 Oa1.2d fiii, 2G8 P.2d 40; (1954). On open questions lett b:;this decision, see Note, 42 Calif.L.Re'·. 600 (1954 I. In general see Johnson and Poland, Forum non Con'l'enlens and the Federal Employers' Llabilltr Act, Ii J.B.A.Kan. 486 (1949); Gri1lith, The 'indication ot a National Public Policy under the Fed· era1 Employers' Llabll1~ Act, IS Law & Cont-Prob. 160 (1953).



',;: .....


Of. Currie and Schreter, Unconstitutional Discrimination in the Conlllct of Laws: EQual Protection, 28 U.Chl.L.Bev. 1,41-42 (1960).







§ 38



.lower' to dismiss has been questioned.' In my event, even if otherwise entitled to dismiss suits under federal statutes, state courts may not· do so in discrimination "against rights arising under federal laws." 8 Such iiscrimination can exist where the forum 3tatute purports to exclude jurisdiction over any foreign cause of action, but would, in view of the "full faith 'and credit due to sister :;tate statutes" (infra), in effect only exclude federal causes of action.o



It was long doubtful under what circumstances a state may "close its courts" to causes of action alleged to have arisen in a sister state. lO The first case in which such closure was held to be precluded by full faith and credit to a foreign law,11 was the now

Pope \". Atlantic Coast Line R. R.. 345 U.S. 370, i3 ~.Ct. 740 (1053),. Ilenying the Heorgia COl1rt's right to enjoin an l!~. E. £. A. action in Alabama, by virtue of tbe plaintiff's claim to the federal venue. It tu1s been Drgued that consequently "tbe forum should not he empowered to dismiss tOl" inconvenience." Carter; J., in Price v. Atcbhlon, T. &: S. ti'. n. R., supra note 6, at ij03, 400. Cf. Coffey v. I.ouisville &: ~a!lh\'i11e n. R., !!58 S.W.!!d 000 IK1.1D-~3), nppnrently approving Frankfurter'S disllentlng opinion in tbe Pope case, supra. 8ee also ~ote, 5 WestRes.L.nev. 1{)2 (lDlH).

lIcKnett v. St. Louis &: San Frnncisco R. Ro, 2D2 U.S. :!30, 54 S.Ct. GOO (1034) (F.I!!.L...\..). See also Testa. v. Kutt. 330 U.S. 386, 61 S.Ct. 810 (104'i) lueille damllges provislon of Emergency Prlce Control At-t). 9. :Ulendorf v. Elgin, Jollet &: Eastern Ry., 8 m. 2d 1&1. 133 N.E.2d 288 (1006). For a crlticism in tbe Ugbt of Walton v. Pryor, 216 Ill. 563. 115 N.E. 2 (1016), npp. dism. !!45 U.S. 675, 38 S.Ct. 10 (1917); Loftus \". Pennsylvnnia. R. R., 107 Ohio St. 3a2. 140 ~.E. !)4 (lO'l3), see ~ote, 32 N.D.Lawyer 159 (1006).

leading case of Hughes v. Fetter,u. followed by a similar decision in First National Bank of Chicago v. United Air Lines.13 In these cases the Court declared state statutes unconstitutional which purported to exclude litigation upon wrongful deaths occurring outside the state. The theoretical basis and subsequent judicial treatment of the holdings have been analyzed elsewhere (§ 9). This analysis suggests that these holdings are likely to remain limited to their jurisdictional tenor as well as to their narrow facts in which "all elements of the wrong" occurred in the state whose law had been invoked by the plaintiff}" This conclusion is supported by the following considerations which, stated previously in another context (§ 9)~ may be summarized as follows: (l): ~ar.. as the Court bases its holding on a ~ent of full faith and credit to- c~~acts", this holding is not borne· out by authorities relied upon (p. 28 ff.). (21~ m.tbisg~erality such a rule would be inapplirali1.: wherever multiple contacts wo~i§[ci:ili!·ct'choice between the statutes of ~~. This would be the case where..wroDgfuL act" injury and death occurred in different states. The Court would hardly find occasion to develop the detailed constitutional choice of law rules which would be needed to decide such cases (pp. 32,141). (3) Purported reliance on "full faith and credit to statutes" inevitably creates the . same discrimination between common law and statutory rules which has only recently been discarded as no longer justifiable in the law of the federal COurts.15

(4) Even on the narrow facts of the decided cases the Court has already found necessary a ne\lt· rationalization. In order to exclude from· tlie new doctrine dismissal under a domestic statute of limitations, the Court had to distinguish the Hughes case on the ground of discrimination between domestic claims and those created by sister states. 1S (5) Finally, even the narrow rule thus announced by the Court has been found too broad. Some state courts have avoided it by reliance upon such ever-ready tools as the characterization of the foreign statute as penal. And the doctrine of forum non conveniens in effect permits any court to reach the same result.ls

'I'lUs analysis seems further SUpported by the study in a later section (§ 40) of the converse situation in which the Constitution has been invoked to exclude the forum's jurisdiction.






stltutlon, 45 CoI.L.nev. 1 (1045); amI cr. Atchison, T. &: S. F. Ry. v. Sowen'l. :!13 U.~. ;'".:i. :'18, iO. :!!) S. Ct. 397, 4U2 (1009); ~Iagnolln Petroleum Co. v. HUIlt. 320 U.S. 430, 64 :).Ct. :!08 (1003).

Wells v. Simonds Abrash'e Co.• 345 U.S. ;;14, 73 See also Quinn v. Simonds Abrasive Co., 109 F.!!d ·no ':kl Clr.1002). per Goodrich, .J.; lIcDanlel v. lIulvlhlll, 196 Tenn. 41, 263 S.W. !!d i59 (1953). But ct. Apica \'. Pennsyl\"ania WarehOll.'dng Safe Deposit Co., 101 F.Snpp. ;ji5 (E.D.Pn. 1051) ; O'Neal v. National Cylinder Gas Co., 103 F.Supp. 'i2O (N.D.Dl.1952): Bank of ~ova Scotia v. San lliguel, 196 F.!!d !)-;)() (1st Clr.1D52) (lex laci). On tbe statute of limitations, see nJso supra. t 31 at notes la.
~.ct. S50 (1953).

In two searching studies, Currie and Schreter have suggested that Hughes and First National Bank (supra b), though they cannot properly be based on the full faith and credit clause, could be readily explained under the equal protection clause, since in those cases the forum states had "discrimin_ ated against certain of their own residents without reasonable justification." 19 The autors concede that they would "wish for more direct support for [their] proposition than cases that do not cite the equal-protection clause.":O It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will decide to supply that support. Such a decision would preclude "discretionary"'~issal without resort to that necessarily inadequate choice of law which has distorted the constitutional tools of full faith and credit and due process.
itself result "In denying enforeement to publie acts
of other stntes."


See supra § 37 note 32-

18. Gore v. United States Steel Corp.• 15 N.J. 301, 104 A.2d 670 (1054); Taylor v. Interstate l!otor I!~relgbt System, 285 A.pp.Dlv. 1010, 139 N.Y.S.2d 130 (1055): A.nno., 48 A.L..R.2d 850. In Hughes v. Fetter. snpra note 12, at 613. the Court reserved judgment on the question wbether tbJs use of the doctrine could

19. Currie nnd Schreter, Unconstitutional Discrimination in the Confiice of' Laws: Equal Protection, ~ U.Cbi.L..Rev. I, 45 (1000). See nlso Currie, Tbe Constitution nnd tbe "Transitory" Cause of Action, l3 Harv.L.Rev. 36,268,203 (1950).

20. Currie and Scbreter. supra Dote 19, at 45.

Earlier cnses dealing with the convel"Se situntlon of sister stllte statutes purportedly excluding tbe forum's jumdlctlon will be dIscussed infra § -10 notes 11ft. II. Ratbel" than by a. sister stllte judgment rKenney v. Sopreme Lodge of tbe World, Loynl Order of lloase. 252 U.S. 411, 40 S.Ct. 311 (1020)], or its equivalent, such IlB an assessment mnde In bank liqUidations. Converse v. Hamilton, 224 U.S. 243, :!52. 260, 32 S.Ct. 415 (1912); Broderick v. Rosner, ~ U.S. 629, 55 S.Ct. lJ89 (1035). Supra § 9 note 13; intrn § 49 note 8, § 60 note 3.

12. Hugbes v. Fetter, 341 U.S. 609, n S.Ct. 080. (1951). See supra 10 notes 28ft. 13. First ~ntlonal Bank of Chicago v. United Air' Lines. 34~ U.S. 300, 'i2 S.Ct. 421 (1952); Note, .61 _:lie L.J. 1206 (1002). 14. This is the analysis of Jackson, J., concurring lo. Ii'lrst National Bank of Chicago v. United ~r Lines. supra note 13, at 400; supra. § 9 note 36. 15. See supra. § £) note 34. But see· Jackson, Full Faitb nnd Credit-The LAwyer's Clause of the Con-




§ 40




§ 39. In'England, originally, all actions were local in the sense that they had to be brought at a place closely connected with the cause of action. As has been shown above (§ 30) 1 this was tnJe even as to "transitory" actions which came "to follow the defendant wherever he could be found."! For even as to those actions the plaintiff was originally "supposed.to lay [the venue] where the Action accrued." 3 Today there have remained "local" only actions in rem" (§ 26) and such personal actions as to land as face dismissal outside the state of the situs.G Among those the majority rule still includes actions for trespass to land,6 while actions on covenants running with the land will usually be held transitory.' The rule prevailing in this country as to jurisdiction over trespass to land is commonI.

ly traced to Livingston v. Jefferson.' In that case the Court, Justice Marshall concurring, held in view of established practice, notwithstanding "the inconvenience of a clear right without a remedy," 9 that a suit for a wrongful entry upon land in Louisiana could not be maintained in Virginia. Some of the reasons generally given for adherence to this rule are lack of lmowledge and facilities of non-situs courts to adjudge questions concerning foreign land; maximum opportunity for the defendant to defend; and judicial reluctance to subject citizens to suits by aliens. IO All these arguments are at best applicable to torts committed in foreign countries rather than in sister states. Moreover, they have long been discarded, as to both types of confticts, in other situations in which they would equaliy apply. Nor is the argument compelling that such an action might involve adjudication of title.l l For these and other reasons the common law rule has long been subject to severe criticism,1: and has been rejected by the courts of at least two states 13 and the legislatures
8. 9. U\'injrston T. Jetlerson. 1 Brock 203, 1~ Fed.Cas.
000 (C.C.Va.181l).

See also Kubn. Loeal and Trnn!;l!o~~' Actions in Prh'ate Internationnl Law. 00 '(j.I a.L.Ue\·. 301 (1918).

2. Boote. An Historical Treatise of au Action or Suit at Law (liro) 9';.

3. Ibid. 4. See e.~. In re Goar's Estate. lou'a - . ?OO N.W.2d 00 (]!IGO); In re Krabbe's ERtnte. 208 llls(·. 19i. 14G N.Y.S.2d ~i (]Sl:;5,1; Cnrmlchncl ,'. U,:I13 Drilling Co.. 243 S.W.2d 458 (Tex.Ch·.App.19;>] I. cr. Note, lu Can.B.Ret'. 112 (193i). Sec also Uest. § 6]3. 5. Alaska Airlines T. Molitor. 43 Wnsb.2d 65i. ~G3 P.2d 2iij (1003) (sllrrcudl!I' of possession of foreJgn land); Connell T. Algonquin Gas TransmiSSion Co.• li4 F.Supp. 453 (D.C.n.I.1959) (condemnlltion). 6. See gcnernlll" Blume. Place of TrIal of Civil cases. 48 ldlch.L.Ue\". I (1949); Foster, Place of Trial-Interstate Application of Intrastate Methods of Ad· justment. 44 HaT\".L.Rev. 41 (1930); Ebrenzwei;:. The Transient Rule of Personal Jurisdiction: The "Power" Myth and Forum Conveniens. 65 'Yale L.J. . 289 300 (1900); Anno., SO A.L.n.2d 1219; Rest. I 614'; Rest. second, Tent.Draft No. 4 (105i) § 11il. 7. Rest.Second, Tent.Draft No.4 (1057) A llik relies :for this proposition upon cases from nine states, dIscOunting as old or obsolc!te cases to tbe co1ltrary :from oDll" three states.

Jd. at 605.

10. &>e RcnMr-lIlll C{)rp. T. Harrison. 220 Ark. 5~4, :M1I S.W.2d OO.J (10:;:.!).
II. Mnnl" transitory nctions such as actions for con·

version or specltic performance may involve such title.
12. Looper. Jurisdiction over Immovables, 40 Mlnn.L. ReT. 191 (1956); 3 Beale, Con1l1ct of Laws (1935) 165i; Stumberg 174L; Hancock. Torts In the Confilct of Laws (19-!2) U5t1.; Notes. 16 Col.L.ReT. 824; 29 Han.L.ReT. Si5 (1916); 34 Han.L.Rc,". 00 (1920); Ii YILL.ney. 691 (1931); 28 Kr.L.J. 462 (1940) i 0 Yand.L.Ret'. 786 (10a3); 6 Okl.L.Rev. &i (10M); 2i N.YX.L.Bev. 850 (1952).

stitution have at different times been resorted :to in denying jurisdiction under for eign laws requiring such denial. Before the issue of the binding effect of these laws can even be raised, there is, however, needed a choice of law rule referring the forum to such laws.1 Thus when it is claimed or held that the forum may not take a case because of a shorter statute of limitations prevailing under the law of the place of contracting t or because of an exclusionary rule enacted b~' the state of the place of injury,3 such a claim or holding presupposes a choice of law rule which makes applicable the law of the place of contracting or injury. With few exceptions 4 courts have, however, avoided express statements of these choice of law rules, and have simply spoken 2. OONSn:tOnONAL COMPULSION! in terms of due process prohibiting the ap· § 40. The Due Process and the Full Faith and Credit Clauses of the United States Con- plication of forum la\\', or of full faith and credit due to statutes of sister states. Where 14. N.Y.Real Property Law I 586. Louisiana as a in such cases the choice of law rule is less· clvU law jurisdiction never bad tbe rule. Jnman v. Barris, 219 La. 55, 52 So.2d 246. 24i (1951). Mis- than clearly settled, this technique must necsouri baR deduced a repudiation of tbe common essarily raise insurmountable difficulties. law rule from the statutory abolition of local venue. Ingram T. Great Lakes Pipeline Co.. 153 S.W.2d 54; For, as has been pointed out before, estab(Mo.App.1941). As to Oklahoma law possibly to lishment of even the barest minimum of tbe same effect. see Note. 6 OklL.Rer. &i, 92 (19a3). workable rules of constitutional Choice of 15. For a conspicuous instance indicating an oppolaw would presuppose many hundreds of site trend. see Johnson T. Dunbar. 300 N.'Y. 69i. 117 N.E.2d 801 (1054). malntalnlng. not\vltbstandlng leg- precedents as to each major field of domestic Islative abolition of the trespass rule (supra note law, a task forever impossible for the highest 14). tbe local action doctrIne wltb reference to Injunctions concerning foreign trespasses. Compare court of the nation necessarily preoccupied in tb1s respect Ophir Silver lllniDg Co. T. Superior with a myriad of more pressing problems. Oourt. 147 Cal. 4G7, 82 P. 70 (1900); canter T. Purse, l26 A.2d G2S (D.C.Mun.App.1956), witll Alexander v. This fact has forced the Supreme Court to Tolleston Club, 110 Dl. 65 (1884); Great Falls Mfg. change in each case what started out as conCo. t'. Worster. 23 N.H. 402 (1851) i and in general stitutional rules of mandatory dismissal, into Anno., 113 A.L.R. 940. mere guides assisting the courts in choosing .16. Stone v. United States. 10i U.S. 178, 17 S.Ot. 778 (1897); Rackow T. United ExcavatlDg Co., 67 F. the law most equitably applicable in the parSupp. 699 (D.C.N.J.l946). See also Dome Ins. Co. ticular case or type of case. This the Court T. Pennsylvania R. R., 11 Bun (18 N.'!.) 182 (1877) ("negUgencett). has been most easily able to do where the 17. Mannville Co. v. Woreester, 188 !!ass. 89 (1884), choice could be made in terms of a priOrity
per Bolmes, J.; Ducktown Sulpbur, Copper & Iron Co. v. Barnes. 00 S.W. 593 ('l'enn.1900) [distin. gulsbed in McCormick T. Brown, 201 Tenn. 160. 29i S.W.2d 91 (1956)]; Vermont ValIer 1l n. v. Connecticut River Power Co., 99 Vt. 397. 138 A. 867 (1926); Smith v. Southern Ry •• 136 Ky. 162, 123 S.W. 67S, 1909); Rest. § 615. But sec Arvidson v. Reynolds Metals Co., 107 F.Supp. 51 (W.D.Wash. 1952). 18. Goodrich 211. I.

of others.1f Even many of those states continuing to adhere to the rule, have limited it to its narrowest confines.l I Thus, jurisdiction will usually be assumed in cases characterized as involving "conversion" 18 and where the trespass emanated from the forum state.l ' Where the action is based on a statute of the situs, additional support for the abandonment of the doc1rine of local actions may well be derived from new applications of fu1 faith and credit (p. 28). General adoption of the doctrine of forum non conveniens would facilitate legislative or judicial abolition of what has been called an ,jarchaic surviVal." 18

See supra II 9 at


33ff.; 38 at notes I1ff.

Of. Home Insurance Co. t'. Dick. 281 U.S. 39i, 50 S.Ot. 338 (1930). Infra note 5.

13. Ueasor-HIll Corp. t'. Harrison. supra note 10; Little v. Chicago. St. P., M. & O. By. Co.. 65 Hlnn. 48, Gi N.W. 846 (1800); Lellar I 47.

S. Tennessee Coal. Iron &: n. R. v. George. 238 t:.S 354, 34 S.Ct. 58i (1914), infra note 12• 4. Cf. Jackson, J •• concurring In First Natlona1 Bnr.l: of Chicago T. United Airllnes, 342 U.S. 896. 72 s.et. 421 (1952) i supra II 9 at note 33, 38 at note 11.




Ch. 1

§ 40

of the "procedural" law of the forum, as in weakening in the meantime of similar efforts cases of conflicting statutes of limitation of the Supreme Court to establish a constiwhich in fact are among the cases most fre- tutional choice of law under full faith and quently adjudicated. In other. cases, how- credit, would by themselves make reliance ever, the Court has· been compelled to resort on the two above mentioned cases highly' to a mere "weighing of interest," thus in ef- dubious. But this reliance has now become fect abandoning the very essence of con- virtually hopeless in the light of the 1954 decision in Watson v. Employers Liability stitutional compulsion. Assurance COrp.D In that decision the Court, a. DUE PROCESS also in an insurance case, permitted applicaIn two cases, several decades old, the tion of the lex fori contrary to the exclusionSupreme Court of the United States com- ary law of the contract and distinguished the pelled state courts to dismiss, in accordance Dick 'and Delta & Pine cases merely on the with clauses contained in insurance policies ground that "some contracts made locally afissued and delivered outside the state, law fecting nothing but local affairs, may well' suits brought within the statutory period of justify a denial to other states of power to the forum. In Home Insurance Co. v. Dick,':; alter those contracts." 10 Since virtually all Texas was held to be "without power to af- cases of this type involve interstate insurance fect the terms" of such contracts, and in policies and are thus not distinguishable on Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Delta this ground, it must be assumed that manda& Pine Land Co., Mississippi was precluded tory dismissal under the constitutional comfrom thus extending "the effect of its laws pulsion of due process has in effect been beyond its borders." 6· By virtue of the first abandoned. lOa case alone the American Law Institute still feels able to maintain "the dogma of a "leg5. 6. to exclude application of a penal law of the forum. islative jurisdiction" (§ 4) recognition of which is said to be required by due process 9. Watson v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp•• 348 U.S. 66. i5 S.Ct. 166 (1004). Plo.1ntilrs had of law.1 brollght suit in Louisiana for injuries suffered in that state and allegedly caused by the defectiveness The reluctance against the use of this apof 0. dangerous product manufactured by an Illinois proach in more recent case law,S and the subsidiary of 0. llo.ssacbusetts corporation. against
5. Rome Insurnnce Co. v. Dick. 281 U.S. 397, 50 S.Ct. 3.18 ~1030) (Texns citizen suing within the Texas ~tatutory period contrnry to a shorter period of limitations contained in the llexlcnn insurance policy). 6. Hartford Accident &; Indemnity Co. v. Delta &. Pine Land Co., 292 U.S. 143, 54 S.Ct. 634 (1934). Cf. In re DllPpereault, [1941] 1 D.L.B. 38; ~ote, 13~.C.L.Rev. :!13 (1935). 7. Rest.Second. Tent.Draft No. 3 (1956) 2Of. supra § '" note 2D: § 9 at note 18. B. Cf. Order of United Commercial Travelers v. Wolfe. 331 U.S. 586, 61 S.Ot. 1355 (1941), compelUng dbJmlssal under a sister state statute of limitations under full faith and credit rather than due process although the facts might have supported either approach. See id. at 608. 622, 628. See also Hoopeston Canning Co. v. OuUen, 318 U.S. 313, 63 S.Ot 602 (1942). But see FIrst American Nat. Bank v. Automobile Ins. Co., 252 F.2d 62 (6th Clr.l958). which reUes on the Dick and Hartford cases, supra note a British llnbUlty insurer, on the basis of an insurnnce polIcy negotiated and issued in Massachusetts and delivered In that state nnd in IllinOis. This suit wns brought under 0. Louisiana statute permitting such direct IlCtiOns contrary to 0. "nonnction" clause valid under the laws of both lIassachusetts. IlDd Illlnois (I 31 note 26). Defendant asserted inter aila (ns to full falth IlDd credit see infra) that due process requIred the Louisiana court to apply the law of issuance and delivery of the poliey, IlDd thus to dlsmlss a suit precluded by a contractual provision valid under the law of the contract,. since otherwise the forum would exercise "extraterritorial jurisdiction" (at 70). This assertion was rejected in view of the interests of the forum in the controversy.

This assumption for the present state of the law does not preclude the possibility "that another c~ with better facts would save for us the ·requirement that the law of a state wholly unconnected, or not substantially connected, with the case in litigation be not applied as substantively controlling." lOb We may share Justice Black's "grave doubts that the Delta & Pine Land Co. case would be treated the same way today on its facts." lOe But it remains true that the Dick case and other cases following it have not been overruled and that distinguished commentators continue to attribute considerable vitality to due process as a vehicle of an at least negative constitutional choice of law. 10eS Yet we have noted that where this approach has so far been used, it has failed. And with progressing concentration of jurisdiction in the forum conveniens (§ 25), it is becoming increasingly unlikely that the Court will find occasion to restate a standard of due process for the choice of law in a ''wb.olly unconnected or not substantially connected" forum. loo






doctrine would result, at least in certain situations, in the Supreme Court's requiring the dismissaI of law suits brought in alleged violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Whatever the historical justifications and the difiiculties of this approach concerning such application of the Clause in other situations, the problem has recently lost much of its urgency with regard to mandatory dismissal. For, with few exceptions, now practically obsolete, wherever such a dismissal has been sought, the courts have refused to impose it: by applying their own law as "remedial;" by relying on their own state's prevailing interests; or by combining both devices. The "exceptions" thus recognized may well constitute the rule. "Mere remedy'. In Tennessee Coal, Iron
& R. R. v. George 1: defendant company had

The "mle". Dismissal sought by virtue of a foreign injunction against the bringing or continuing of a law suit will be dealt with below (§ 51). The present discussion is limited to motions for dismissals based on full faith and credit to the statutes of sister states.U Consistent application of this new

demanded dismissal by the Georgia court of an injury suit brought by its engineer under a statute of Alabama, the state of injury, because that statute required all actions under it to be brought in that state "and not elsewhere". The Court denied the applica.. bility of the Full Faith and Credit Clause to this exclusionary provision since "a State cannot create a transitory cause of action and at the same time destroy the right to sue on that transitory cause of action in any court having jurisdiction . (under) the law( of the court's creation • . 13 In

Leflar. Book Review, 13 StanfL.Bev. 696, 699


10. Id. at 11. Italics added.

100.. Due process has never been invoked to secure the one choice of law role most firmly establisbed, namelr the· situs rule' of succeSSion. Clarke v. Clarke, 118 U.S. 1~,20 S.Ot. 813 (1900). See intra § 56 note 4, I 58 note 26: AnD~. oJS A.L.R.2d 569.

10c. Clay v. Son Insurance Office Limited, 363 U.S. :!01, 220. 80 S.Ct. 1222. l280 (1960) (dissent). See a.lso Le1Iar. Book Review, 13 Stanf.L.Rev. 696, 699 n. 9 ("in process of being overruled"). IOd. Currie, The Constitution and the Choice of J.aw: Governmental Interests and the Judicial Function, 26 U.Chi.L.Rev. 9 (1058): Weintraub, Due Process· and Fun Faith IlDd Credlt Limitations on a State's Choice of Law, 44 Iowa !..Rev. 449 (1959); Rheinste1n. Book Review, 8 J.Pub.L. 551, 557 (1959); LeBar. supra note lOb. . 10e. Supra note lOb.
II. See- In general Falkenhaosen. Full Faith and Credit ta'Statutes of Sister States, 31 Corn.L.Q. 441

(1952); Reese. Full Faitb and Credit to Statutes: The Defense of Public Policy, 19 U.Chi.L.Rev. 339 (1952); Sumner, The Status of Public Acts in Sister States, 3 U.C.L.A.L.Rev. 1 (1935); Jackson. FuU·Faith and Credit-The Lawyer's Clause of the Constitution. 45 CoI.L.Rev. 1 (l0-!5): Radin. The Autbenticated Full Faith nod Credit Clause: Its History, 39 IIl.L.Rev. 1 (IDH). Supra § 9 notes 32ft'.
12. Tennessee Coal. Iron 5; R. R. v. George, 233 U.S. 3M, M S.Ct. 587 (1014). In Dennick v. Railroad Co.• 103 U:S. 11 (1880) the foreign statute had l>een .

interpreted as not containing such un exclUSion. ~ee Rest.Second. Tent.Draft No. 4 (1957) I ll7(1). 13. Tennessee Coal, Iron 5; R. R. v. George, 233 U.S. 354; 360, 34 S.Ct. 581,588 (1914). For an aPJ)l1catlon of this doctrine to the relation between state and federal court, see l\[atter of Fresquez v. Farnsworth & Chambers Co., 238 F.2d 709 (1~ Clr.l956). See




§ 40





relying on the case of Atchison, etc., R. R. v. Sowers,14 the Court rejected the contention that the power of a·'state to reserve exclusive jurisdiction to its own courts depended on whether the cause of action was based on a "common law liability" or was "new and statutory". It was considered, however, that there may be cases "where right and remedy are so united that the right cannot be enforced except in the manner and before the tribunal designated by the act." 11 A similar problem may arise with regard to foreign statutes of limitations. As has ' been 'suggested above (§ 37), courts and legislatures seem inclined to bar actions under . either the lex fori or the lex loci, unless they wish to offer protection to a resident plaintiff against a nonresident or alien defendant In that case they probably tend to recognize the longer period of limitations of either the forum or the lex causae. Only where a holding of the last kindapplication of a longer forum statute over a -shorter foreign one-would fail to be based upon sufficient contacts of the forum, might constitutional compulsion be exercised to protect the nonresident or alien defendant This was done in Home Insurance Co. v. Dick under the Due Process Clause (p. 142) and in Order of United Commercial Travelers v. Wolfe 160 under Full Faith and Credit In the latter case an Ohio citizen had brought suit in South Dakota on a life insurance policy of a citizen of that state against an Ohio fraternal benefit society. Although the forum statute had not run, the dismissal of the suit was held mandatory because of the full faith and credit due to the "public acts of
nlso Rogers v. Dwight, H~ F.Supp. 53i (E.D.WIs. luali). 14. Atcbisoll, T. & S. F. R. n. T. Sowers, 213 U.S. 55, !!9 S.Ct. 30i (lOOn). 15. Tennessee Coni, lrOll & R. n. T. George,233 U.S. 3:)01, &iU. 34 S.Ct. 58i, aSS fI014,. Concerning the recognition of sister state injunctions, see Intra I 51 notes 9ff. 15a. Urder of l~nlted Commt'rclnl Tra\'elars T. Wolfe,331 C.S. 580, Oi S.Ct. 1355 (1947).

Ohio", the state of incorporation,and to the "constitution of the society," which limited the bringing of an action to a period of six months after disallowance of the claim. However, like Due Process, Full Faith and Credit does not ·promise to supply an effective corrective against improper choice of law in this field.. In the Wolfe case the defendant's claim went beyond the mere application of a foreign statute into the field of the enforceability of contractual provisions. lo For this reason, if for no other,!' this decision has found little following. 1B In the light of more recent announcements of the Supreme Court/10 it may perhaps be considered obsolete. The forum's prevailing interest (workmen's compensa.tion).to During the period accompanying the compilation of the Restatement, many courts and scholars still hoped to establish a uniform conflicts law by dog16. See nl~ Holcl(!meRJ: v. Hamilton l-'Irc Ins. Co., M r.supp. 14[, (S.D.Fln.1944.1. 17. ~l'(' pnrtkul:II')Y JII~lif~e RI:l<'k's d\lIsellt. ~31 'U.R. r.~fi. G:!:;. (H~. (ii S.CL law, 13i4. l:k~. pojntln~ out thnt \lnder tlli:-; dl'CIt:lolI "the stnte in wbich the JIIu ..:l 11I,\\'('rfnl corporations nre concentrated. or tilU~ co1'(lOrntionll them~lves. might well be nllle to Jluss lu\\':< which would {:oTerll contracts made by llCul,le III nil the other states."
18. ~ee e. ~. Trammel ,'. Brotherbood of LorolllOtl\'(~ nrt'lIIf'lI and Eu;:lnetn('u, 120 Mont. 400, 2il3 I).~d :t!!1 1ll1;'.3), where the court. ~i\'inl: preference to tlll' formll stntute. wus "impr~~d witll the IOJ:ic of the dit;j;(!ntln~ opinion In the Wolfc case," nnd dCJlhod thnt the dt'feudnnt's cOJlRUtutiou was n "public act." Set' nl~/ ~t·hl':-;(fI ,'. Order of UnU<?d Coll\lIIel'clol TJ11\·cll'r:<. :W:: lIisc. 3iD, lli N.l:.::i.2d iuO (IU~:!J:· Urdl'r of linitt.'Cl COlI\\lIercial Travelers ". Duncau. ~1 }".~u iO:I «(jth CiI·.lo:hiJ.





matic and constitutional compulsion. 21 The Supreme Court held in Bradford Electric Light Co. v. Clapper 22 that the common law suit brought in New Hampshire by a Vermont employee against his Vermont employer, for injuries suffered m. New Hampshire, was subject to mandatory dismissal, in full faith and credit to the Vermont Workmen's Compensation Act which precluded the reinedies sued for. This decision assumed, of course, a (constitutional) conflicts rule referring the New Hampshire court to the law of the place of employment. 23 Nevertheless, the Court felt free, on the one hand, to subject an injury sustained in Alaska to the jurisdiction of California, the state of contracting and other contacts; 24 and felt compelled, on the other hand, to uphold California's jurisdiction over a California accident contrary to an exclusionary statute of Massachusetts, the state of contracting and citizenship.2Zi Both cases imply the adoption of special alternative choice of law rules for the purpose of workmen's compensation,2G thus in effect eliminating mandatory dismissal under full faith and credit. Nevertheless, the Court has not yet in terms overruled the Clapper case, to:

but has consistently distinguished it on thf:ground that in that case, in contrast to all others since decided, exclusiveness of foreign jurisdiction was not "obnoxious" to the forum.1S But even this relic of the Clapper case, namely a full faith and credit thus conditioned, has become dubious in the light of Carroll v. Lanza.29 In that case the Court upheld the common law jurisdiction of Arkansas, the place of injury,· contrary to the exclusive Workmen's Compensation Act of Missouri, the state of contract and residence, and stressed that a prior decision had "departed. . from the Oapper decision." 30 It can be safely said, therefore, that the Court will probably not impose mandatory dismissal in workmen's compensation cases in the future. Lower courts have followed this obvious trend,31 which also expresses itself in an apparent willingness to assert coverage of foreign accidents under the local act:r. On the other hand, decisions
28. Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident . Commission, supra ~ote-.2;:', nt 004.
29. Carroll v. L:lIlzn. 340 "C.S. 408, i5 S.Ct. 804 SE!(! also iotrn notes 40a.


See supra notes la.; § 4 note 18; § O.

22. Bradford ElectriC Li{:ht C(). 't'. Clnpper. 28G U.S. 14a, ~ S.Ct. ::;il (l!.I3:!.I. See suprn § !J note 23.

23. The cll~es In thl~ field are ill ,:enernl ph railed ill terms of n choice of the aPillicnble law. O\\'lnl: to the pecullnr structurl.! of workmen's comp<?nslltion wbich is subject. ill first instance. to adminlstrath'c handling.-choice of a foreiJ!1I law would automatically exclude the jurisdiction of the forum. For this reason this discussion has 1>een included at this poiDL But see infra note 32.
24. Alnskn Packers Ass'u v. Industrial Accident Commission, 294 U.S. 532, 5a S.CL 518 (193~).

30. Id. tit 412. referrinl: to PnclOe Employers 1m:. Co. v. Industrial Al-cldeut ('.om m i!olld 011. f;1\prn WIll.' 2K See nl!';11 ShE!(!rln ,'; ~tPE'l('. 2411 1;'.2tl ini. ~I~:.! (nth Cir.l0:ii), cerl.den. :-ma l'.t$. f13.o.:. 77 S.Ct. ~11; (llNn. referrin~ ttl till' LllnzlI CUlle. supr.. 1\ot(> :!:t. Dt: "Impliedly, tllou.:h not e.'\: Jll'l'St!ly. o\'errullu,: tht' Clapper rullll!:;" Xotes. (I! I Hllr\'.l ... lle,.. 11ft. 1:1:: (10:;'-',: 04 AIIch.L.lle\'. W!! (In:l(;). See nhro Ander' fIOn \'. New )·ork. l\. H. &: B. n. R .. 14!1 F.SlIJ)p. 00

19. Wells v. Simonds Abrasi\'e Co., 345 U.S. 514. i3 S.Ct. 85G (In~3), holdlll~ applicable C01l\'ersely tlle sborter statute of tbe torum because "app1rlllg the statute of limitations of the forum to a foreign sub· stanth'e rlJ:bt «lid not denr full faith and credit, lIcElmoyle T. Cohen. 13 Pet 312 (ISS!)". at 5)(i. The Wolfe case was not distingUlsbed. See also McMillen v. Douglns Aircraft Co., 00 F.Supp. QiO (S.D.Cn1.l950); Note. 11 Wash. and Lee L.nc\'. 47 (19ii4); supra note S. But see Weintraub, Book Review. 4410\\'a L.Rev. Di9. 9S1-9~(19GO'. 20. Concerning International conOlcts in workmen's compensation cases, see supra § 6 note 14.

25. Pacific Employers Ins. Co. 't'. Industrial Accident Commission, 30G U.S. 493, 59 S.Ct. G29 (1939).

26. Further extension beyond the alternative rules of place of Injury and place of contracting is indicated in Card1l10 T. Liberty MutunlIns. Co., 3SO U.S. 4G9, 474, 67 S.Ot. 801, 80::; (1047). See also Kilburn \'. Grande Corp.• 287 }".2d 371, 373 n. 1 (5th Clr. 1961). 27. But. see Frankfurter, J., dissenting In Carroll T. Lanza. 349 U.S. 408. i5 S.Ct 804 (1955), Infra note 29.

31. Sheerin ,'. Steelc. slIpl'n not(> :~O; JOllnthll1l Woodner Co. \'. Mnther, 03 1'.S.APII.I>.C. 23-1. :!lll F.2d MS (10a4). cert. dell. 3-1S C.~. re·t ir. ~.('~. 39 (1954) (nonronstitutionnl ('hol('(' of low): WI;· son T'. Faull, 2i N.J. lO~. HI A.2d i68. iiG (lOaS!; Elli~ 't'. Garwood. IGS Ohio St. 241. 152 N.E.2d ](1" (1058). But see Oblbaver v. Narron. 195 F.2c1 Gifj _ (4th Cir.19::i21. nnd in general Lnn~J:chllllcJl. Cltoit·(! of Law in Workmen's ComllCnsation. 2-1 Tenu.L. Re\'. 322 (10:;a): Stone. The }'orum's Poll<.'y nnd tll(· Detense of Faith and Credit to Workmen't: ComJl('JI' sotion Acts. 41 10\\'8 L.Rcv. a5S (1056,; Note, lOG U.PaL.Rev. 472 (1958).

32. Spelar T. American O"erseas Airlines, SO F.SuPI1. 344 (S.D.N.l:.l947) (transatlantic airplane accidftUII. Much could be gained br greater readiness to apI"." the late of anot!ler state (supra note 231. See c. l!. Franzen \'. E. 1. DuPont de Nemours &.: Co.• 140 F.!!d S3i (3d Clr.I944); and. 10 general, Stone. Tbe



ElnnzwtISl Conflict of u-10








§ 41

may still be found dismissing claims arising from local accidents by virtUe of foreign contracts conferring exclusive applicability upon the "law" of the contract.33 A similar abandonment of constitutional compulsion in the law of merger will be discussed below (§ 63).


A foreign corporation may, even if otherwise subject to the forum's jurisdiction (§ § 24, 33), be protected against suit if such jurisdiction would impose an unreasonable burden upon interstate commerce. After an earlier decision to this effect,3-& the Supreme Court in the Davis case established the rule in a suit between two foreign corporations upon a foreign cause of action.33 Later the rationale of the rule was also held applicable and the suit dismissed where plaintiff had acquired forum residence before bringing suit. 3G But business activities of the defendant in the forum state have been consistently held to render suit. by a resident plaintiff permissible. 31 And ever since Cardozo's opinion
Forum's Policy and the Defense of Faith nnd Credit to Workmen's Compensation Acts. 41 Iowa L.Rev. aOS (1956); ~ote. 6 Vand.L.Rev. i44 (1953). See nlso intra note 40: § 228 note 1. 33. ~fnndle v. Kelly, 22D :\[Iss. 327, 00 So.2d 64G (l05R) (reference to due process, see !lupra note 5); Buckmnn v. Republic Structural Palntlng Corp., 302 8. W.2d 853 IICy.loai) (relying on the Clnpper case, supra note 22). 34. PuUmo.n Co. v. LInke, 203 F. 1011 (S.D. Ohio 1013). 35. Davis v. Fnrmers Co-op. Equity Co., 262 U.S. 312, 43 S.Ct. ~6 (1923). See also Atchison. T. &: S. F. Ry. v. Wells. 265 U.S. 101, 44 S.Ct. 469 (1024); llichignn Centrnl R. R. v. lUx, 278 U.S. 492, 49 S.Ct.

in International Milling Co. v. Columbia Transportation Co.,38 with its discretionary test of an "oppressive and unreasonable burden," constitutional compulsion may be said to have yielded to flexible standards approaching those of the doctrine of forum non conveniens (§ § 35ff.) .39 Indeed, since its adoption in the federal courts, this doctrine has taken over much of the function of the interstate commerce rule in its most important application to defendant railroads.

States reversed on the ground that "theState's power [was] not dislodged so long as the Federal Government has not taken over the field of 9remedies for injuries of employees on interstate buses as it has done in the case of employees of interstate railroad carriers." U Arizona was free to take jurisdiction. d.




less, attomeys representing foreign corporations as defendants would do well to keep in mind the rule of the Davis case,"&6 which, in lieu of discretionary power, creates the constitutional obligation to dismiss a suit burdening foreign commerce. The weakening of the Davis doctrine in interstate cases was probably caused primarily by the federal courts' new power to transfer the case to a more convenient forum under Section 1404 (a) of the Judicial Code:" But in the absence of such power this doctrine has probably remained fully effective in those cases where the alternative forum would be in a foreign country.

The same liberal trend appears in Collins v. American Buslines..&o with regard to workmen's compensation. The Supreme Court of Arizona had held the· Interstate Commerce Clause to preclude an Arizona award of workmen's compensation to the widow and child of a California bus driver who had been killed while driving an interstate bus in Arizona. The decision had argued that by awarding compensation to the driver who was covered by a California statute, Arizona would compel the employer to insure and thus place an undue bUrden upon interstate commerce...at The Supreme Court of the United
45 S.Ct. 41 (1024): Schendel v. lIcGee. 300 F. 213 (8th Cir.l024); lIoore v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R.. snprn note 30. Cf. Erlanger Mills v. Cohoes Fibre lUlls, :!30 F.2d 502, 007 (4th Clr.lil56). As to the

Section 8 of article 1 of the Constitution endows Congress with power over the regulation of commerce not only among the several states of the Union, but also "with foreign Nations." Even where this power is exclusive;u it has been rarely invoked in attempting to defeat state jurisdiction over extranational corporations (§ 33) ,"" apparently because the rule of forum non conveniens has afforded such corporations sufficient protection against foreign plaintiffs on foreign causes of action (§ 35).oiIS Neverthe42. Collins v. Americnn Busllnes,


U.S. 528. Gal,

iG S.Ct. 582, 584 (1006). (Jomf)4re New York Central R. R. \'. Porter, 249 U.S. 168, 39 S.Ct. 188 (1919) (F.E.L.A.) wUh Basham v. Southeastern lIotor Truck Lines. IDe.. 184 Teno. 532, 201 S. W.2d 678

corresponding choice of law doctrine of Western Union Telegrnph Co. v. Brown, 234 U.S. 542, 546, 34 S.Ct. 05G, 006 (lQ13), see supra § 9 note 2238.

(1941) (Federal llotor Oarrier Act). See also Southern Pncillc Co. v. Ari,..ona ex reI. Sullivan, 325 U.s. 761, 761, 65 S.Ct. 1515, 1519 (1045). As to tull faith nnd credit in workmen's compensation c:nses, see supra notes 2Ofl'.
43. See e. g. Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvnnla, 114 U.S. 106, 5 S.Ct. 826 (1885). 44. See Louisville &: N. R. R. v. Deutsche Dampfschlffahrts-Gesellschaft; 43 F.2d 651 (S.D.Aln.1930), declarlng unconstitutional an Alabama statute In· sofar as porportlng to permit attachment ngatnst extranational corporations upon foreign causes of action: Hsu v. PhiUppine Alr Lines. Inc., OS F.Supp. 805 (N.D.Cal.105l) (jurisdiction upheld upon domestic cause of action): A,tlnntlc Mutual Ins. Co. v. N. V. Stoomvaart Maatscb. "Nederland," 2 lIIse2d 28, 151 N.Y.S.2d 84 (N.Y.Clty Ct.l955) (jurIsdIction dec:tlned notwlthstandiDg subrogatlon ot New York plnlntiff).

Internatlonnl lIlUlng Co. v. Colnmbia Transportation Co., 202 U.S. 511, 521, 54 S.Ct. 701, SOO (1034). See nlso Standard Oil Co. v. Super. Court, 44 Del. 5:~. 62 A.2d 454 (1948), app.dism. 336 U.S. 930. 69 S.Ct. 739, (1949), reb.deo. 336 U.S. 053, 69 S.Ct. 819 (1949).

§ 41. So far those rules have been discussed which govern the discretionary (§ § 35 fl.) and mandatory (§ § 39 ff.) dismissal of actions, based on the United States Constitution and the practice of the courts. 1 There remains for analysis the law governing attempts of the parties themselves to control jurisdiction. Wholesale contractual exclusion of judicial adjudication ("derogation") does not seem to have proved troublesome in the common law world.: But attempts at thus excluding com46. Snpra note 35. 47. Supra I 35 note 31. I. American law does not seem ever to bave exclnded from American jurisdiction, spec:1ftc subject matters (but see for foreign laws Rlezler 2301f.) or suits be· tween foreigners as such (cf. Rlezler 200). As to discretionary dismissal in these nod other cases. see supra. It 35fr. Ct. 2 Schnitzer IPR (4th ed. 1958) 826. . 2. But see Shaw, Cb. J., In Note v. Hamllton Mutual Insurance Co., 6 Gray (12 l[nss.) 174, 181 (1856), con· eeding that contracts which provide that "In case ot breach no action shall be brougbt: or that a party in detaolt shaD be Uable in equIty only and not in law," might be lawful "it made on good consideration, though enforcement may be Hmited to damages." As to foreign law ct. Riezler' 298f.; Scbledermair, Ve.reiDbamngen 1m Zivilprozess (1933) 9&. 4; "partial derosatlon" may be seen In an agree-




36. See Denver &: R. G. W. R. R. v. Terte, ~ U.S. :!S4, 52 S.Ct. 1;)2 (1932): lIlchlgan Central R. R. ,'. l11x, :!78 U.S. -l!)2, 49 S.Ct. 201 (192D). But "in general one has a right to seek redreSs of his grlevnoces in the forum of hIs domiciL" Oressey v. Erie Central R. R., 2iS lIass. 284. 180 N.E. 160, 163 (1032). See also Gries \'. Central Vermont Ry., 3 A.D.2d 661, 158 N.Y.S.2d 442 (1057), 159 N.Y.S.2d 042 (1957): lloore v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Ro, 98 F.Supp. 3i5. 382 (E.D.,P1L?-951). 37. Hoffman v. State o~ lfissourl ex rei. Foraker, 214 U.S. 21. 47 S.Ct. 483 (1021'); State of 1Iissouri ex rel. St. Louis, B•. & M.. Ry. v. Taylor, 266 U.S. 200,

Farrier, Soits against Foreign CorporatiOns as llurden on Intel'StIlte Commerce, 17 llinn.L.Rev. 381 tl933): McGowan, Litigation as a. Burden on Interstote Commerce, 33 DLL.Rev. 8i5 (1939); Com· ments, G6 Yale L.J. 1234 (1947). Sel.Read. 339; M llicb.L.Rev. 079 (1986); Anno., 14 ~L.R.2d 420, 431; supra t 12 note 1.

40. Collins. 9. American Busllnes, 350 U.S. 528, 76 S.Ct. 582 (1956).
41. CoUlns v. American Busllnes, i9 Ariz. 220, 286 P.2d 214 (1955). See also Spohn v. lndustrlal

45. But see Overstreet v. Canadian Pacific AlrUnes,
152 !'.Supp. 838 (S.D.N.Y.1957) (sutt dismissed un·

Com'n, 138 Ohio St. 42, 32 N.E.2d 5M (1941): HoUy v. Industrial Comm'n, 142 Ohio St. 79, 50 N.E. 2d 152 (1943).

der Commerce Clause, by nonresident against Ca· naqlan corporation for injuries sustained In Qana· do.), distlngolshlng Shulman. v. Compagnie- Generale Transatlantlque. 152 F.Supp.. 833 (S.D.N.Y.1957) (actlon tor lnjnry sustained In France by Connectl· cut resident agaInst French. corporation)•.




§ 41




The general "non-ouster" rule, as stated, is usually assumed to be an outgrowth of an alleged early reluctance of English courts to permit parties to oust their jurisdiction by agreements to arbitrate.· There is little historicaJ support for this assumption, In the oldest American prorogation case commonly a. PRoRoGAnoN OF 0niER. COURTS referred to in this connection, Nute v. HamilThere is, of course, no guestion but that a ton Mutual Ins. Co., 'I Chief Justice Shaw reccourt having jurisdiction over the subject ognized the absence of authority and rested matter may assume personal jurisdiction his opinion on "principle." 8 The derivation conferred upon it by the consent of the par- of the prorogation rule from an allegedly ties, whether this consent be expressed either earlier anti-arbitration practice also appears prior or subsequent to the creation of the doubtful in the light of the fact that that cause of action (§ 27). And it is considered practice is in turn usually traced to an allegequally settled that such consent cannot val- edly even more ancient rule against the "oustidly "oust" any court of its jurisdiction.' The ing" of courts of their jurisdiction. 9 Whethlatter proposition, however, which is con- er such a rule has ever existed in its alleged trary to the law of other countries, a seems generality is qUestionable,10 and none of the reasons advanced for it seems persuasive. ment upon a sborter period of limitations. Riddles·' barl:er l'. Bartford Insurance Co.• i Wall. (74 U.S.) In the Nute case Chief Justice Shaw reaSSG (l8G8); Holf\ton ,'. ImJllement Deniers Mut. Fire soned that "the rules to determine to what lnll. Co.. 20r. F.2cl M2 (51h Cir.19:'1011; Note. 80 Col. . I •. Ue\·. 3S3 (103111; s\1prn, 3; note 11. - COurts and counties actions may be brought Concerning agreements not to suc, see Infra I 183
note 16. As to prorogation or administl'ath'e agencjes abroad. S(!C Itiexler 295. 4. (J Corbin on Contrnctli: (1951) , 144:;; St\1mberg 2iO; 3 Ueale. Conflict of Laws (193."i) 1000: Notes. ·m 'Iale W. 11:;0 (]O:ili): 22 Corn.L.Q. 4GO (193i); 2.1 So.Callt.LUc'·. 59:; (lflrlO). While Rest. § 61 i comment a. wns to the oontrary. Itest. Second. Tent. Draft. No. 4 (195i) § Ilia. would return to tile untenable axiom that "prlTllte indi\'ldualll have no )lOwer to alter the rule,,; of judicial jurisdiction." See also Anno., 56 A.LR.2d 300. 5. Delallmc, Jurisdiction of Courts nnd International Loans. 6 Am.J.Comp.L 189. 191 (1957); Lorenzen. The French nules of the Conflict of Laws, 86 Yale L.J. 731. 741 (l92i); Lorenzen. The ConfUct of Laws in Germany, 89 Yale LJ. 804. 825, 826 (1930): The Cap Blanco, (1918) L.R.Prob.Dll'. 130 (discretionary validation under Arbitratiou Act). But ct. Addison l'. Brown, [19M] 1 W.L.n. 'i19. upholding the "ouster" of a California court by agreement, while conceding that the ouster of English courts might be against public poUcy. See also Droft Convention on the Jur1sdJction of the Selected Forum In the Case of International Sales of Goods, Art. 2. 5 Am.J. Comp.L 653 (19M). For an exhaustive comparatil'e survey, see Lenhoff, The Parties' ChOice of a Forum: "Prorogation
3. 6.

petent courts by agreeing upon another specific court ("prorogation") continue to offer problems. s Some of them are shared by the law of arbitration which, rightly or wrongly, has often been treated as another means of "ousting" the courts from their jurisdiction, and will be dealt with in the following sections.

doub1ful in the light of an analysis of its history:and current case law.

are fixed, upon consideration of general CODvenience and expediency, by general law; to allow them to be changed by an agreement of parties would disturb the symmetry of the Jaw, and interfere with such convenience." U This reasoning may be, or rather.may ha.ve been, valid with reference to the intrastate venue problems involved in this case. 12 But it is irrelevant in our interstate jurisdiction case. For there is no "general law" purporting to fix venue as among the states. And Shaw's second argument that "the remedy does not depend on contract, but upon law," 13 though freguently repeated in later cases, is
II. Nute l'. Hamilton Mutual Insurauce Co.• G Gray m Mass.) 174. 184 (1856). See also Hall l'. People's Mutual Fire Ins. Co•• 6 Gray (72 Mass.) 19) (1856); Amesbury '\'. Bowditch Mut. Fire Ins. Co•• G Gmy (72 Mass.) '096 (1856).

15 Rutg.L.Rel'. 414, 415-430, 439-490


See e. f:. InsurantC Company l'. Morse. 20 Wall.
(Si U.S.) 4.I:i. 4iil (1SH); Note.!!3 SO.CalL.Re'·. GO:i (lMO). On the history of arbitration in tbis respect, see Infra §§ 42 fT.

i. Nute '\"'. Hamilton !lutual Insurance Co•• 6 Gray
(i2 Mass.) 1i4 (1856). In that case a prol'lslon in the by·laws of an insurance company requiring suits under its contracts to be brought in tbe county of the company's establishment, was held unenforceahle. AFo to the likely rationale of this case see infra notes lift. 8. Nute l'. Hnmilton Mutual Insurance Co.• suprn note 7. at 185. The court did refer to the English arbitration case of Lidnj:Ston l'. BaIll, 5 El &: Bl. 132. 119 Eng. Rep. 430 (18M). But this case was a contemporary one and held that an action for damages for breach of an arbitration agreement would lie. that agreement being "a very judicious and proper arrangement." In reaching Its decision, the Nute court had to distinguish those eases in which agreements limiting the action to a certain period had been upheld. See supra note 2. 9. Sturges. Commerclal Arbltrl1tiODS and Awards (1930) 45. Infra § 4210'. See infra notes lia.

See McCartby l'. Herrick, 41 Idaho 529.240 ·P. 192 (1925); General Acceptance Corp. T. Robinson. 20i Cal. 285, 271 P. 1039 (1929); "Anno., 10i A.L.R. 1060. The problem has lost ·much of In: eaTUer meaning even with regard to intrastate TeDUe cases. 14. "Parties by their stipulntlonFo may in manr wa.",: Though the Nute case seems never to have been make the law for any lej:!ol proceedlul: to whicl) overruled, It has not by any means been generally thl'Y are pnrtlc.c::. which not only hinds them, but adhered to. Drown T. Alabama Chemical eo.. 201 "'hlch the courts nre hounet to enforce. Ther ma.T Ala. 215, 92 So. 260 (1t)'J-2). re!errinJ: to a line of stipulate for shorter limitations of time for brinl!cases to the contrary. See also Heslin T. Eastern BuDding &; Loan Ass'n of S;rracuse. 28 Mlf;c. 3i6. U9 " inJ: actions • • .' They mnrstipulate that the decl!olion of the court shall be flnal. and thus waiTe N.Y.S. 512 (1800); Greve l'. Aetna LI\'e-Stock Ins. the rlJ:ht of appeal; . . • and ,renerally. all stipCo•• 81 Bun 2S. 80 N.Y.S. 668 (189..J), and Bo1me.c;' ulations made by the parties for the f:overnment of refutation of the Nute case as "a somewhat hesitattheir conduct, or the control of their rl,:II18, in the ing deciSion", limited to Its facts. Daley T. People'!; trlnl of a cause. or the conduct of lItiJ:ation, are Bldg.• Loan &: Savings Ass'n. 178 Mass. 13. 59 N.E. enforced by the courts." Matter of Lncka"'anna & 452 (1901). 10 Cadlllac Automobile Co. l'. Englelan, Western It R. Co., 98 N."I. 44i. 403 (1885). See 81c::o 889 :Mass. 26, 157 N.E.2d 007 (1950). the court did Benson \". Eastern Bldg. &: Loan Ass'n, 174 N.Y. 83. not feel compelled to reexamine the Nute doctrine. 00 ~.E. 62i (1903); infra notes 22ft. But cases seem to have become rare, )lerhaps because insurers and other drafters of adhe- 15. See State ex rel. Kahn l'. Tazwell, l!!5 Or. 52S. sion contracts hal'e lost their Incenth'e for including 200 P. 238, 243 (1928): "The la'T prescribes t1I(' venue "ousters" In their contract forms. For, e\'en jurisdiction of our courts. and It cannot be dlmin· If such clauses were to be held nlld today, the Ished or Increased by the conl'entlon of the parties. " plaintiff would have little difficult)' in al'olding the cr. Judge Learned Band's nlated opinion, § 4 note stipulated venue under the liberal transfer provi23; and supra note 4: intrn note 25. Sions of modern venue statutes. See In general Stevens, Venue Statutes: Diagnosh: and Proposed 16. See e. g. Nashua River Paper Co. v. HammermJll Paper Co., 233 Mass. 8. 111 NE. 678 (1916). Cure, 49 Mlch.L.Rev. 301 (1951). The same consideration should explain why agreements upon a 17. Anno.. 10; A..L.R. 1060 bases the usual postulate specific federal court, at one time apparently quite of general inl'alidiQ' of prorogation on cases Invoh"usual, hal'e lost tbeir appeal in l'lew of the transfer lug adhesion contracts [Standard Pipe Line ~. l'. provision of Judlclal Code § 1404(a). supra § 35 note Burnett, 188 Ark. 491, 6G S.W.2d 63i (1938). cert. 87. But see e. g. Pryor v. Union Pae. R. R.. 34 CaL dell. 292 U.S. 649. 54 S.Ct. SUi (1934) (compensation 2d 724, 214 P.2cl 877 (1950); Boyd T. Grand Trunk agreement with employer); Parker l'. Krauss Co., Western R. R., 388 U.S. 263, 70 S.Ct. 26 (1949). lui Mise. 6Gi, 284 N.Y.S. 418 (1035) (prorogation by Louisiana department store of LouiSiana couru In 13. Nute '\"'. Hamilton 'Mutual Ins. Co., 6 Gra.r (72 conflict ariSing from standardized sales contract)); Mass.) 174, 181 (1856). and a serIes of intrastate "enue cases mostly deal.

clearly incorrect,u as is the related jurisprudential postulate that the parties "may not legislate".u Finally, the statement that prorogation agreements are against public policy,lG is the conclusion to be proved rather than proof for the conclusion. Neither history nor rationale thus bear out the much-repeated general axiom that parties may not "oust" the courts from their jurisdiction. Court language to this effect should be met with caution, and the law should be reformulated as it may be derived from the factual analysis of the decisions. From this analysis it will "appear that contractual ousters have been held invalid by the courts primarily, and perhaps only, in two types of cases: namely where a weaker party "was thus to be protected against his opponent's attempt to deprive him of his proper judge; or where an American citizen seemed to require protection against a foreign forum. n






§ 41



In the first place it must be noted that

those prorogation clauses which were struck down under the Nute formula in early interstate cases had been inserted in "adhesion contracts", i. e. contracts drafted and imposed by entrepreneurs, usually insurers, and adhered to by customers signing on the "dot.. ted line." 18 Probably for similar reasons,
Ing with agreements in promissory notes. [For older similnr cases. primarily involving Insnrance contracts, see the ~ute. Hall. Reichard, Bartlett, :md Tuzwell cases. notes 11, 15, IS unll Anno.. 50 •.u~R. 14451. 3 Beale, Conftict ot Laws (103:;) IG61 cites tor the same postulate, in addition to the Xnshua River l'aper Co. l'fl:ie. supra note 16. two venne cases [l[ntuul Reser\'e Fund Ufe Ass'n v. Cleveland Woolen }(lUs. ~2 F. 508 filth eir.1S0;) (federal v. sOlte): llcLean v..Tobin. 58 lllsc. ii2S, 109 ~.Y.S. 026 (1008)); two Ctl~ im'olving courts ot forein COUll tries (Kuhnhold \'. CompaJmle Gen6rale Trnns.. :!a1 F. 3Si (S.D.N. Y.I018): Sudbury v. Ambl Verwaltung KommllDditge!ellschnft nuf Aktlen. :!13 App.Div. OS. !!10 N.Y.S. llH (102;J»; one . tllctum [Generailiotors Acceptance Corp. ,'. Codlga. b'2 CnUpp. lli. 216 P. 3S3 (1!J9..3)); nnd one arbitmtion cnse (United SOltes .uphnlt Refining Co. v. Trlniliad r.uke Petroleum Co., :!'!2 l!'. 1006 '~.D.X.Y. 1015)1. ~ote.:!3 So.CIlI.L.llev. ;;!);1 (1050) adds Wood .\\ Sellck ,'. CompagIiie GCnc:rnle Trans.. 43 F.2d !loll (2d Cir.lD30) (court of toreign country); Pnrker, Peebles .\\ Knox. v. El Saieh. lOT Conn. 545, 1·11 A. ~ (1028) (RIlIIle IlDd adhesion contract): Sliosberg v. New York Lite Ins. Co., :!11 App.Dlv. 685. 217 N.Y.S. 226 (1026) (foreign country, o.tlbesion contnlct. no remedy :lbroatl). See nlso e. g. Prince Stenm·Shipping Co. \'. Lehman, 39 F. 704 (S.D.N.Y.l889); nnd ~ote. 4 Duke B~\.J. 110 (1936). The Supreme Court dictum most widely quoted (". . • agreements in advance to oust the courts ot tile jurisdiction conterred by law nre illegal and void") was pronounced In n case declaring unconstitutional a stntute requiring an ouster "agreement" by insurers seeking a license. InsurIUlce Co. v. llorse, 87 U.S. 445. 451.(1874).

the Massachusetts court in a leading case invalidated a Pennsylvania agreement be.. · tween a Pennsylvania manufacturer and a· Massachusetts sales agency, by which the manufacturer had hoped to confer exclusive jurisdiction upon its own courts.19 More recent cases seem governed by the same ra· tionale, which gains express support in those decisions which would limit effectiveness of the parties' agreement to "neutral" courts.!o· The second group of cases in which proro .. gation agreements have been typically re.. jected, are those in which American citizens had subjected themselves to extranational courts. Perhaps the suggested reformulation of the alleged rule will support the greater liberality of those cases in which prorogations of courts of foreign countries have been upheld if agreed upon by equal partners.U
of Laws: "Autonomy" in Choice of Lnw In the United Stntes, 1 ~. Y.I.. F. 46. Gl (1055); Levin. Party . .-\I.ltonomy: Choice-of-La\v Chlllses in Commercial Contrncts. 46 C";eo.l ...l. 200 (1057-r~): Comments. 58 Col.L.Rev. 212. 21S ,bUls of lading). 214 (1058). See genernlly infra IIi:!.
~nshua River Pnper Co. v. HnmmermW Pnper Co•• supra note 16.

20. See Soelednde Brasilclrn de Intercnmbto Comercinl e Industrlnl ,'. S. :-;. Punta del Este. las F. SllPP. 3M. 396 (D.C.~.J.l!)",,,:;); nnd cr. Daley v. People's Building. Lonn &: Sav. Ass'n. liS llo.ss. 13. aD ~.E. 452 (1001): Ylannopoulos. Condlets Problems in International Bills of Lading, 18 Ln.L.Rev.
600, 622 (1958). 21.

On the other hand, it is generally recogniZed that the parties to a dispute are free to agree upon its a(ij'udication by a specified court,!t-although in such cases, too, courts will be loath to permit a party with greater bargaining power to determine jurisdiction without genuine consent.:3 Secondly, the validity of a prorogation agreement now seems established if it is entered into between two aliens.~' These so-called exceptions from an alleged general rule of invalidity defeat the above-stated primary rationale of that rule, i. e., the proposition that parties cannot "legislate" to alter the remedy. In fact, the language and rationale of the leading case supporting the second "exception", is much broader and can well be held to recognize the prinCiple of the general validity of prorogation agreements entered into at arms' length. For, the court in that case expressed the opinion that the parties "might make any reasonable arrangement for the settlement of their disputes;" and noted "the tendency in modern times to permit greater freedom in contracting in matters of this kind than formerly." It thus ~ound "no occasion for the protection of the dignity or convenience of the courts," 25 but instead a
also Aetna Ins. Co. v. The SntruseltUl. lil F.Snpp. 33 (D.C.Puerto Rico 1950), mod. 174F.Supp. 934. 22. Detwiler v. Lowden. 108 Minn. 185, 260 N.W.838 (lD36), reh. den. 269 N.W. 838 (1936). is otten cited for this proposition. In the International conllicts !leld Gltler V. Russian Co., 124 App.Dlv. m 108 ~.Y.S. iOS (1008) may be better nuthorlty (prorogntlon ot Russian court tor suits upon Judgment). See also Henlngton v. Thompson, 61 F.Supp. 003 (D.O.:l(o.l945) ; Clnrk v. Lowden, 48 F.Supp. 261 (D.C.llinn.1042). Contrn. Sherman V. Pere llarquette R. Co., 62 F.Supp. 500 (m.1M5). 23. See- Boyd v. Grand Trunk Western R. R., 33S U.S. 263,264. iO S.Ct. 26, 27 (1949); Goodrich 197. 24. See Nashua River Paper CO. V. Bammermill Paper Co., 223 Mass. S. III N.E. 618 (1916), commentIng upon lUttenthal v. lIascagni, 183 lInss. 10, 66 N.E. 425 (1003). Infra note 25. See also e. g. Tnkemura & Co. V. The S. S. Tsuneshima Maru, 107 F. SuPp. 009 (S.D.N.Y.l931). 25. lllttenthal v. lIascagnl, 183 Mass. 10. 66 N.E. 425 (1903). See also e. g. Kirchner V. Gruban, [10001 1 Ch. 413 (agreement between two- Germans upon German court).

compelling analogy with clearly valid agreements to arbitrate (infra § 42), and to shorten the statute of Umitations.28 Indeed, the validity of prorogation agreements entered into at arms' length has been recognized in numerous decisions. Thus the Massachusetts court found no difficulty with a prorogation clause in a certificate of corporate membership, because the parties were "standing in an equal position where neither has any oppressive advantage or power." s, Other cases to the same effect are e.~lainable on the same ground, and seem to justify the statement of a general rule of validity modified by an exception concerning adhesion contracts.:8 Contrary to hornbook law, it has at least been held to be "well settled" that parties to a contract may agree upon the exclusive forum of the place of contracting.::9 And a New York court properly identified the "innumerable ca.ser' seemingly to the contrary as cases involving uinsurance poli· cies. building contracts and the like:" 30: all contracts of adhesion. This result in effect accords with the rule stated by the Court of Appeals of the Second
26. Supra I 3i note 11. An ngreement to contract away the right to discovery was held valid on the same ground in EllIott·McGowan Productions v. Republic Productions, 145 F.Supp. 48 (S.D.N.Y.I056). See also intra § 161 note 20. 27. Onley v. People's BuUding. Loan & Sav. Asa'n, 178 llass. 13. 50 N.E. 452 (1901), distinguishing the Nute case. supra note 13, on the ground that "In that case the provision was contained in II by-Ia\v of a mutual Insurance company, nnd it undertook to limit claimants to one county III a. small state.

18. See supra notes 13. 17; and e. g. Reichard v. llonbattnn Lite Ins. Co.. 31 llo. 518 (1862): Bartlett v. Union l{utual Ins. Co.• 46 i\le. 500 (1859). For the general theory ot adhesion contracts, see Kessler. Contracts· ot Adheslon-Some Thoughts about Freedom of Contract, 013 CoI.L.Rev. 620 (1943); Prausnitz, The Standardization of Commercial Contracts In Engllsh IUld Continental Law (19Bi); Isaacs, The Standardizing of Contracts. 21 Yale L.J. M (1917): Raiser, Das Recht der allgemeinen . OeschiLftsbedlngungen (1986); Friedmann, Lnw nnd Social Change In Contemporary Britain (1051) 3·Uf. : BatUfol R48; Wallne. L'lndlviduallsm et Ie droit (1045) 168lf.; Coste-Florer. Las probl&n1es fondamentaux du droit (1946) 169ft.; Raiser. Vertragstreiheit heute, 13 J .Z. 1 (1058); Ehrenzweig, Adheston Contracts In the Condlct of Laws, 54 Col.L.Rev. 1072 (19501). But ef. Yntema; Contract and Conftlct

Compare Sudbury v. Ambl Verwnltung Kommandltgesellschatt auf Aktien. 213 App.Dlv. 98. 210 N. Y.S. 164 (1925) (sille of securities): Re HamburgAmerican Line, 1~ lilsc. 715, 288 N.Y.S. 331 (1930), aff'd without OPt 22S App.Dlv. 802, 239 N.Y.S. 014 (1930) (contract of carriage); Kuhnhold· v•. Compagnie G6neraie TrlUlS.. 251 F. 387 (S.D.N.Y.1018): Wood &: Sellck v. Compagnie Generale Trans.. 43 F.2d 941 (2d Cir.l030); SIlOSberg V. New York Life Ins. Co., 217 App.Dlv. 685, 217 N.Y.S. 226 (1026); Slocum v. Western Assur. Co.. 42 F. 235 (S.D.J.~.Y 1890) ; The Edam. 21 -F.Sapp. S (D.C.N. Y.l938) ; Gough v. Hamburg AmertkanJsche, etc.. 158 F. 174 (D.O.N.Y.~; Alutana Ba.n.kgenossenschaft v. Perren, 21 (Thnn.Super. 5, 141 A.2d 255 (1957). But cr. Carbon Black Export, Inc. v. The SS llonrosa. ~ F.2d 297 (5th Clr.l958), cert. dlsm. 359 U.S. 180, 79 S.Ot. 710 (1959). Whlle the Snpreme Court in thls case refused to resolve the condlcts among the Circuits regarding llbels In personam (cf. dissent, id. at 359 ·U.S. 184. 77 S.Ct. 713), It construed the stipulation as not including llbels In.rem. Se&


28. See e. g. Harbls v. CUdahy Packing Co., 2U 110. App. 188. 2-11 S. W. 060 (1021); General Pboenix Corp. v. lIalron, 88 F.Supp. 502 (S.D.N.Y.I049). See also the general language in Gilbert v. Burnstine. 255 N.Y. 343, ITo! N.E. i06 (1931). treating "contracts in advance to submit to the process of torelgn tribunals." as partaking strictly of the parties' private business. Cf. Elkin v. Austral American Trading Corp.• 10 lllsc.2d 819, 110 N.Y.S.2d 131 (1957). 29.. State ex reL Harbls v. Trimble, 202 1I0. 333, 238 S.W. 800 (1922). 30. Gitler V. Russian Co., 124 A.pp.Div. 273, 108 N.Y.S. 793 (1008).







Circuit according to which "in each case the enforceability of suchan ·agreement [of prorogation] depends on its reasonableness." 31 Although the court confirms the traditional proposition that the "parties by agreement cannot oust a court of jurisdiction otherwise obtainable," it appears to treat this proposition as just another instance of an exercise of discretion under the doctrine of forum non conveniens under which the agreement will be given effect if "not unreasonable." 32 Thus. such "hostility" as may ever have supported. the alleged rule against "ouster," may soon be overcome.33 . Conceding arguendo the chronological priority of the anti-prorogation rUle as compared to that against arbitration agreements.3-& the following argument could finally be made to overcome this hostility. In 1914, Justice (then Judge) Cardozo invalidated such agreements. arguing a fortiori from the assumed treatment of prorogation agreements: "for in the one case we yield to
31. Wm. R. Muller &: Co. T. Swedi£;b American J4in('. 224 F.2d son (2d Cir.l955). cen. den. SilO U.S. ooa. 76 S.Ct. ls:! (1900). Accord. Chemical Carriers T. L. Smlt &: Co.'f! InternatioDale Sleepdienst, lu4 F.Supp. SSG.88S (S.D.N:r.1n:ii): "It I~ no longer the lnw that contractual pro\'islons ,vhleh pur)lOrt to limit a jurilldlction "'hlcb would otherwise attnell ore ,"old nnd unellforceahle." See aillo Cnrgo L'ltely Laden 011 Boo reI the Fehmarn v. Fehmarn, [1958] 1 W.L.n. 150, ]~ (195';), per Lord Denuing ("not absolutely binding," but "normally" giTen effect).
32. Wm. B. Muller &: Co. T. Swedish American Line, supra note 31, at 80S. See also Cerro De Pasco Copper Corp. T. Knutsen. lSi F.2d 990 (2d Clr., 19:;1); Soclf.>dade Braslleirn de Intercnmblo Comercial e Industrlnl '\'. S. S. Punta df.>l Este, 1&1 F. Supp. 894, 890 (D.C.N.J.1955); Heitner '\'. Zim Israel Nn'\'lgation Co., 152 F.Supp. 8 (S.D.N.Y.10u7). In Chemico1 Carriers v. L Smit &: Co.'s Internationale Sleepdlenst, 154 F.Sopp. SSG (S.D.N.I'.195i), the agreement was Ignored under this test inter alia because plaintiff foreign corporation was predomInalltly Amel'icnn-owned nnd because the lnw ot the foreign court might ha,'e left the plnintlft' without a remedy. Both arguments seem of doubtful persuasiveness. See al!lO Skins Trading Corp. v. The SIS Punta Del Este, ISO F.Supp. 609 (S.D. N.1:.1960).

regular and duly organized. agencies of the state and in the other we yield to informal and in a sense irregular tribunals." 35 May and should this argument not now be reversed? If courts have now generally chosen to yield to "irregular" courts of arbitration, they will, a fortiori, do so as to regular courts of other states or countries. 36 at least in the absence of undue pressure on an adhering party. Persisting opposition to prorogation agreements seems based on both legalistic grounds and the courts' desire to protect economically weaker "adherents" from losing their remedy. On the' other hand, commercial interests increasingly demand the upholding of suCh agreements. It would seem likely, therefore. that the compromise, long foreshadowed in both English 3' and American case law (supra). and now expressly adopted by the Second Circuit. will gradually become generallaw.38 But in lieu of anew addition to
35. Meacham Y. Jamestown, F. & C. n. Co., 211 N.Y. S-W. 10:; N.E. o::i3 (]014). See also Sudbury T. Amhl '-"",,nltunl: Kommnlldltge~lIsehaft auf Aktieu, 21:1 APIl.DI\". 9S, 2]0 N.I'.S. 1(I.J (1925) (relying on this argum('nt In a case Im'olTing the prorogntion of German courts). 36. This nr~ment was mnde in Berner T. United Airlines, !! Mls('~2cJ 2(\0. 140 N.Y.S;2d 3:Ju. 343 (10uG). aft"d 3 A.D.2cJ 9. l:i7 N.I'.S.2d SR4 (19:.0); and by n dissenting judge in l'arker Y. Krnuss Co.• supra note Ii. at 284 1\'.Y.S. 48:;. with reference 10 GJlbert ,'. Dnrnstlne, 2rlij N.Y. 348, 174 N.E. 700 (1001) (Gnmt Brltalni valldntlng nrbltratlon aJ:reements, infra § 42. See also Keh'ln Engineering Co. T. Blanco. 125 Mise. 728. 210 1\'.Y.S. 10 (1925) (Cuba), relying on severnl English cases to the somt.' effect: and In general Lorenzen, Commercial Arbitration-Internationnl nnd Interstate Aspects. 43 Yale LJ. 710, 721,7-13 (]034). But d. Appl. of Bamburg·American Line, lai; Misc. 71u, 238 N.Y.S. 331 (1980) (Germany), distinguishing the Arbitration Law on the ground that ''It Is· not to aid in preference ot one court over another, but to discourage litigation." 37. See e. g. AustrIan Lloyd Steamship Co. v. Gresham Lite SOCiety, [1908] 1 It.B. 249; The Media, 41 LL.L.Rep. 80 (1931); Dicey's Con1Uct of Laws (7th eel. 1958) 10Sdff. 38. Even this rule would create an unexplainable con1Uct "'Ith those arbitration statutes excluding discretion altogether. Cf. Phillips, The Paradox In Arbitration Law: Compulsion as Applied to Voluntary Proceeding, 46 BaM'.L.ReT. 1238 (1933); Pblllips, Arbitration and Conflicts of Laws: A Study of Benevolent Compulsion. 19 Corn.L.Q. 197 (1934)•.

the chaos of forum DOn' conveniens (§ 35), 1:be outright recognition of the parties' autonomy might be more desirable, if tempered by the court's continuing power to refuSe e1fect to "unreasonable" prorogation agreements, and subject to specific iegislation limiting access to the courts of the forum.at Similar considerations may come to govern, more openly, the related agreements upon foreign statutes of limitations.40



§ 42. The law of arbitration has long become a highly specialized branch of the law, dealt with in many treatises and articles. 1 The present discussion must remain limited to the impact of that law on the ordinary jurisdiction of the courts, to the exclusion of the many questions which have arisen concerning the law applicable by the arbiters,S! or the effect of arbitration awards.3 The enforcement of foreign arbitration awards will 'be dealt with elsewhere (§ 53).

England. The ·"ouster" ·of all·courts by agreements to arbitrate is said to have met the same or even greater. judicial hostility than agreements purporting to oust the jurisdiction of other courts (§ 41); 4 presumably because, in arbi1ration agreements, courts have found expressed the parties' distrust in the judicial process as such. But as early as 1698, . Parliament authorized agreements making arbitration awards roles of the court to the effect of rendering refusal·to.· perform them punishable by contempt. 1S And all through history due weight seems to have been given to the many valid reasons for the settlement of controversies by arbitration. Avoidance of expe.nse and delay, the call for judges familiar with customs and practices, or for application of that law primarily bearing upon the interests of the parties, have always been recognized as reasonable grounds for choosing the process of arbitration. The fact that such choice still seems to be lacking wholesale judicial support should not simply be charged to judicial jealousy.o
4. For a critical analysis, see Corbin on Contracts. § 14325_ {} &: 10 Wm. III, c. 15 (1698). Cf. Milne T. Grofrl:.. ;- East GOS. GIl, 103 Eng. Rep. ~36, 237 (1800) .
6. Sec G Corllin on Contracts (lIm1) 731, who "('CUIfidently bellev(>() tllnt the origin nnd lIuM'ival of tllt' rule as to arbitration a,reements cannot be e~­ plalned by any supposed jenlou~y of the jurlf'dictlon by tlle judlles. much less by their desire fOT fees." This eOD\'iction of a ,rent scllolor should carry much weight, eyen as against the general nt:sumption to the contrary. But it Is difficult to dil'card Lord Campbell's hlstorlenl analysis In Srou T. ATerr, 5 B.L.Cas. 811. 853, 10 Eng.Rep. 1221. ]:!3S (1850), wblcb bas become the ever-repeated basis of nearly all decisions and writings on tliis subject III England and in this country. See e. g. BOl1on ,'. Sayer, 4 B. .5: N. 643, IS; Eng.Rep. 993 (Ex.185tl). But ct. Park Const. Co. T. Indepelldent School Dj~t., 209 Minn. 182. 290 N.W. 4io. 47i, 486 (1941): Kulukundls Shipping Co. Y. Amtorg Trading Corp.. 126 F.2d 978 (2d Olr.1942). It may be of some shmitlcance tllat Lord Campbell In Livingston Y. Rulli. :, EL &: BL 132, 130, 119 Eng.Rep. 480, 432 (1855). one year before his decision in Scott T. Avery, supr:-,. could not "account for" "a horror of a domestic forum" that "seems at one time to have prevailed 1n our Courts.. It Tbere is little doubt but that court fees played B.!.J Important part in the early struggle between COlX-'

-~ ~~~.


See New 1'0rk Genernl CnrpnMltlon T.n\\'" J 22.,): Fldan T. AUlltral American Trnting Corp.• 8 Mise. 2d 59S, lOS N.Y.S.2d 2i (19571.

. .~~:

.,-,.. --..=





33. See Krenger Y. Pennsylvania R. Co., 174 F.2d 550, 561 (2d Cir.1949), per Learned Hand, J. 34.
See supra note 9.

40. Supra note 2G; § 37 note 11. I. See American Arbitration Association. Arbitrntlon BlblloJ:rnphy (1954); SympoSium, 10 Vand.L. Re\". 649 (19:;7). 2. See pnrticularly E. J. Cohn, Commercial Arbitration and the Rules of Law: A Comparative Study, 4 U. of Toronto L.J. 1 (1941); Dayld, Rapport sur l'arbltraJ:f.> COD\'entionnel en droit prlve, Societe des Nations, U.D.P., Etudes III (paris 1938); 2 Rabel SiGff.: Bernnrd. L'Arbltrngt.' yolontnlre en droit prh'e (193i) ti171I.; Vulllemln, De l'arbltrage commercinl, particu1i~rement en matil!re Internatlonale (1931): Landrau. Varbltrage dons le droit Anglalll et Francais (1932) : Klein, Considerations sur l'arbltrnge en DIP (1055): Landolt, Reehtsanwendung oder Bllligkelt.c;entscheid ete. (1055); Renggli, Die Gl'ellzcll der Partelfrelbeit 1m Ipr. Schledsverfahrell (1955) : Union Internationale des Avocats, Arbitrage international commercial (195G): Mezger, Tbe Arbitrator and Private International Law, Intel'national Trade Arbitration (ed. Domke 1958) 229-250: Corbin, Enforcenblllty of Contractual Agreemenuz for Dispute Settlement Abroad, Id. at 251-255; infra. I 208.



3. Isaacs, Two Views of Commercial Arbitration, 40 BaM'.LRev. ·929 (1927); Carlston, Theory of the Arbitration Process, 17 Law &: Cont. Prob. 631 (1952).






§ 43



Though the process of arbitration is traceable to much earlier periods, '7 merchants seem to have begun to resort to arbitration extensively when the decline of admiralty jurisdiction in the 16th and 17th centuries 8 had deprived them of the most effective means of avoiding the cumbersome and expensive processes of the common law courts. It may well be that these courts were for this reason reluctant to lend their aid to this
ilion In\v courts and equity. See 1 Holdsworth. A History of Enl:Ush Law (1031):!54. But It remains .(oulttrut whether this factor also intluenced the nttitlllie of both common law courts and equity toward arbitrntlon. See also 1 Story. Equity Jurisprudence (1836) II20f.: .. •• • \vhere the stipulation. thoul:h IlOt n£:l\inst the policy of the lnw. yet is nn effort to .Ie\·est the onlinary jurisdiction of the common tri· bUlluls of justice. such as an u~reement in cnse of uny .Hspuces to rofer the snme to nrbltrntor.;, n. Conrt of Equity will not. any more than n Court of r~w. Interfere to enforce the u~reement; but it will lea\'e the parties to their own good pleasure . . . .\nd. at all e\·ents. Courts or Justice are presumed to be better capalJle of uc.lmiuistering to the reai.rl~hta elf the parties. than nny mere prh'ate arbitrators, from their superior knowiedge. us well uS their supt!rlor means of sifting the contro\'ersy to the \'ery bonom."

device for depriving them of their jurisdiction. But such reluctance cannot be deduced from the decision most consistently relied upon for this purpose. Vynior's Case 9 mere. ly held an arbitration agreement "counter. mandable" upon forfeiture of a bond by the defendant who had refused to submit to arbitration,-on the pattern of the usual enforcement of any other agreement at that time. to In fact, this case may be considered as convincing proof of a mercantile practice then long established.l l Two later cases, announcing a rule of revocability, may have been prompted by the fact that in the meantime the 1697 Statute of Fines and Penalties had made it impossible to enforce obligations by penal bonds. U One of these cases fails to give any reason,13 the
9. Vynlor's Case. S Co. SOa, 81b. S2a, i7 Eng.Rep. 505. 501. ;j9I) (1609).
10. ;; Holllsworth, Hil.'ltory of EnJ:llsh Law (102·H :!!l3; Wol!l\·er. The Historicni Buckground of Commercial Arbitration. 83 U.Pn.L.Rev. 132. 140 (1034). Promisees would exact sealed bonds to insure a performance not otberwlse enforceable.

other was soon attacked as unsound.1' Not until well into the nineteenth century do we find revocability of arbitration agreements simply explained by judicial aversion to the courts' "ouster" from their jurisdiction. As early as 1793, it was said that the parties may agree expressly "that there should be no suit at law or in equity," and that it was "every day's practice, that if they do, they cannot proceed contrary to the agreement." 15 At the same time Lord Kenyon praised arbitration agreements as "very advantageous to the parties; as arbitrators are more competent to toe settling of complicated accounts than the officers of courts of law or equity;" 16 and 50 years earlier a court had stated without any apparent reluctance that "persons might have made such an agreement as would have ousted this co~ of jurisdiction." IT Mid-nineteenth century saw a confirmation of this attitude. l8 English courts have
14. Welllngton v. lIacKlntosh. 2 Atk. 560; 26 Eng. Rep. j·U (1743). In lIltchell \'. HarriS. 2 Ves.Jun. 120. 132. ao Eng.Rep. 551. 5M (1103) the reporter in tbat case was Ilccused of having "mistaken Lord Hardwicke's reasons. • . ." 15. lIitchell v. Harris. 2 Ves.Jun. 129. 132. ao Eng. Rep. 551, 558 (Ch.l7D3). Xe\'ertbeless, the court granted a bill of dlSCO\'ery, lea\'lng it to the court of law to decide wbether this nJ:Nement WIlS a bnr to tbe nction. Against tbe bill It hnd been claimed that "there is no sense in wbat is said in Kill v• Holllster." supra note IS. Id. at lSl. 558.

hardly ever deviated since from their acceptance of arbitration as a desirable institution.19 And English legislation over the past 150 years has effectively counteracted what may have been judicial counter-trends. In 1833, the arbitrators' authority was made irrevocable,:o and a statute of 1854 authorized the parties to proceed ex parte and the court to grant stays pending arbitration.s1 These and other reforms were consolidated in the Arbitration Acts of 1899-1956.22

§ 43. Unit'!d States. American courts have always treated arbitration agreements as valid: 1 by imposing varying sanctions for their breach;:: by permitting suit upon arbitrators' awards; and more recently, by treating the award as a condition precedent for a law suit.3 Indeed, be it because of civil law influences during the Dutch period;"' be it because of the closely lmit community of
19. Of. Tredwen v. Holman. 1 H. & C. i2. 81. 158 Eng.Uep.SOil. MO (Ex.lS62l: Ripley v. Great Northern Ry .• a1 L.T.R. (II. s.) 860 (Ch.1Si5): Collins v. Locke, ..J. App.Oas. 61-1:. 680 (1879); St. John's Shipping Corp. v. Josepb Rnnk. Ltd., [1956] 3 W.L.R.

7. See e. g. Kyd. Law of Awards (1808): Caldwell.
Law of Arbitration (1825): Klein. Considerations stir l'arhitrnge en DIP (1055) 12!lff.; 5 Holdswortb, .\ Hisrory of English Lo\v (l!l'!i) laof.; U hI. U:U. Cases go back (0 tbe IGth century. ~ee Y.B.Pns. :!M Hen. VI. t. 11. pL -I: (1-H0): Y.B.Hll•• :!l Hen. VI, t. :Wn. pl. 14 (1-W2); Y.B.Trin. ~ Ed. IV, t. 3b. pI. :! •H(5); Y.B.llicb. S Ed. IV. t. Ob. IOn, pl. 0 (1468). ~n oITer to arhitrate mny be found as early as 1327. CuJendar of PI en ancl lIemoranda Rolls of the City of Lonclon 1323-1364, at 20 (Thomas ed. 1026). See .41s0 lLalynes. Consuetudo, Vel. Lex llercntorla. or tbe Ancient Law-llercbant (3d ed. 1686) ~ff. (''The second or rather ordinarle course to end the questions and controversies arising between lIerchants"). See In genernl Sturges. Commerclal Arbitrations and Awards (1030), Preface: Jones, Three Centuries of Commercllll Arbitration In New York. [1956] Wash.U.L.Q. 193 (1956); Coben. Commercial Arbitration and the Law (1918) 253ft'.: Sayre, Development of Commercial Arbitration, 31 Yale L.J. ~05. 609 (10'28).
~. ~

Vynior's Case. supra note 0, "enforced a bond for· faUure to nrbltrnte and bad there been any hostility the wbole covenant could have been beld void. . . ." Wola\'er. supra note 10. at 130.

870.882. 3 & 4 Wm. IV, c. 42, § 3D (1833).

llarch• .1.ctions for Sillunder and Awnrds of Arbltrements (1647) reports: "Compromises or ..\rbitrements \vere never more in use than now. And most men either have been or may be Arbitrators, or at least hnt"e done, or mny submIt themselves to the Arbitrntion of others. ,\nd as long as differences and contentions arise among men, ",blch will bee to tbe world's end, certaiDly the leaming of ..\rbltrements wtll well desene our knowledge." See also Blackstone. Commentaries (Jones' ed. 1916) Book Ill, p. 11 ("great use of these peaceable and domestic tribunals").
12. S" 9 Wm. Ill. c. 11 (1697).

21. 17 &: 18 Vict.• c. 125 (1854). 22. See Hogg. The Law of Arbitration (1036) 5 fr.; Russell on Arbitration (15th ed. 1952) i3.

I. See Infra notes 5 fl.

)(ears. The History of the ..\dmlralty Jurisdiction, Select Essars. Anglo-American Legal History •1008) 312: Laing. Historic Origins of Admiralty Jurisdiction in England,. 45 lOch.L.Rev. 163 (1946): Holdsworth, The Development of the Law lfercbant and its Courts. 1 Select Essays in Anglo-American T..etpll History 1.1007) 288•. 308ff.; Gllmore and Black, Admiralty (1957) 9.

13. Kill v. Hollister, 1 Wlls.K.B. 129, OlS Eng. Rep. 532 (1146): Kyd. Law of Awards (1808) 14. But see llarsb, suprn note 11•.. at 168, where tbe author, a barrister, mentions a decision by Justice Ashton In the 28th year of Henry VI, which. prior to Vynlor's Oase'f supra note 9, declared irrevocable tbe submission to arbitration. This case will be found in Brooke's La Graunde Abridgment of 1586, p. -l4 verso, who begins his comprehensive chapter . on Arbitrement, at p. 44, With the statement that "in pledlng de arblterment, Ie partY droit monstre Ie Ileu ou Ie submisslo !uit falt, et lea nosmes des arbitrours." See also intra note 1~

2. Rest. Contrncts § 550. 16. Hnlfhlde v. FenDing, 2 Bro.O.O. 336. :w Eng.Rep. 3. Satter Building :\{llterials Co. v. Kirschner. 142 181 (0b.1iS8). ~ot untll Lord Eldon's hellted atConn. 1. 110 A.2d ~ {Jos·n: lUUer v. American tacks in Street v. Rigby. 6 Ves.Jun. 81iS•.31 Eng.Rep. Ins. Co.• 124 F.Supp. 160 (W.D..uk.1954); Anno.• 1323 (Ob.l802), admittedly partly based on bis un· ~6 U.R. 10... lfencbam v. Jamestown, F. & O. R. fortunate experience as counsel 10 Price v. WUR•• 211 N.Y. 346. 105 N.E. 653 (1014), relled upon by Hams, 3 Bro.Oas. 163, 2D Eng.Rep. 461 (0h.1i90), and 6 Oorbin on Contracts (1951) i'38 If. for the contrary partly on iI. desire to give equity the same position view. can perhaps be explained on other grounds. he assumed lnw to take [ld. at 820. 1326]. do we Infra note 21 (adhesion contrnct). find the ftrst indication of a hostile judicial attitude. 4. Daly, History of the Court of Common Pieas. 1 See also Waters v. Taylor. 15 Ves.Jun. 10, 23, 33 Smith XXVII (N.Y.O.P.1855). referring to the Dutch Eng.Rep. 658, 663 (Ch.1807), wbere Lord Eldon, trained la\vyers of the Dutch West India Company. though mlllntaining his view of the law. sought to See Jones Three CenturIes of Commercial Arbitragive effect to the parties' "anxiety to keep out of tion In N~W York: A Brief Suney, [1956] Wash. Court." U.L.Q. 103. 195 (1956). See also 2 Story, Equity 17. Wellington v. Mackintosh, 2 Atk. 510, 26 Eng. Jnrisprudence (1836) 681: "It Is curious to remark the coincidences between the Olvil Law and our Rep. 141 (1743)• law, in regard. to arbitration and awards. Whether 18. Dimsdale v. Robertson, 2 Jo. & Lat. 58 (lr.Eq. we. are to attribute this to the origin of the latter 1844): Scott v. Avery, lS HL-Oas. 811, 10 Eng.Rep. in. the estnbUsbed juriSprudence of the former: or 1221 (1856). See also Russell v. Peregrini. 6 E. " to the same good sense. prevailing. in different naB. 1020; n9 Eng.Rep. 1144 (18lS6): and supra note tions. • • ." S.




§ 43



merchants in early New York,s it can be said at least for that state, but probably also for many others,6 that arbitration as a means of settling disputes is qui~ as ancient as court adjudication and has in its own way as effectively. fulfilled its specific function." The slow and seemingly reluctant growth of the equitable remedy of specific performance 8 is probably due to the revocability doctrine discussed in the preceding section: "When the law has declared, that any agreement for an arbitration is, in its v~ nature, revocable, courts of equity are bound to respect this interposition 9 ." Retention of this doctrine has been often defended in this country as well as abroad 10 on the ground that at the time of entering the agreement the parties cannot foresee all possibilities for dispute some of which may turn out to be quite inappropriate for an adjudication by arbitrators.U Indeed, in Vynior's Case, so generally considered the fountainhead of hostile judicial attitudes against arbitration, Sir Edward Coke, in stating the doctrine of "countennandable" arbitration, likened it to the law's insistence upon the revocability of
5. Jones, suprn note 4, at 210.

a will.U In other words, the undoubted virtues of settlement by arbitration are held by many to outweigh its shortcomings only where intention to arbitrate continues until the time of the proceedings. Be this as it may, progress may well· have been impeded by the "hypnotic power of the phrase 'oust the jurisdiction.' Give a bad dogma a good name and its bite may' become as bad as its bark." IS But legislation and re-examination of the underlying social and legal problems have, in part, affected these attitudes and are likely to continue to do so in the fUture. There is nttle to be gai~ed from an attempt to analyze present American common law without regard to the important inroads made in this field through legislation by Congress and in nearly all states.u This legislation has continued a tendency traceable back to colonial statutes, U which attempted in varying degrees to increase the scope and ef· feet of agreements to. arbitrate. The most progressive ones among modern statutes have made such agreements irrevocable and pro12.






'vided for specific performance,18 or for a ·the parties to stipulate modes of service not stay of court action pending arbitration,'" otherwise available,t3 as well as "ex parte ar· while some have only, wholly or in part, codi- bitration." U But the effect upon the arbitration clause, of the violation or repudiation fied the common law.18 This diversity of legislation and persistent of a contract has remained doubtfULlIS And, judicial hesitation may indicate tim continued most important, enforcement of the agreelack of a satisfactory solution. Irrevocabil· ment by specific performance is still limited 1ty of the agreement and stay of court action to a few states. Judicial discretion, suggest· seem well on the way to general acceptance. ed by recent English developments,IG would And, by or without legislation, the scope of hardly be the best solution. Perhaps a statarbitration has been greatly extended to in- utory rule in principle granting specific perclude such claims as those arising from sepa" formance, would be more .generally accept· ration agreements,U children's SUppOrt,1O able if two possibilities of judicial control and stockholders' agreements.!1 Moreover, were clearly safeguarded: The judge's power it now seems clear that these remedies will to deny the validity of the agreement where also be available concerning agreements to unequal bargaining power or the use of forms arbitrate abroad,!: and will be held to permit cast doubt on the existence of true consent:!':
16. McOllDtock, EQuity (2d ed. 1948) 165. 17. Tbese states bave mostlr followed l\.Y.Civ.Prac. Act H 1448-140D. See e. I!. Kull1lmndls Shipping Co. v. Amtorg Trading Corp., 120 F.2d 07S (2d Cir. 1942); Josepb F. Mittelman Corp. \". Murray L. Spies Corp., 134 N.'t.S.2d 223 (Sup.19M). On the UnUorm Act [9 C.L.A. (195;) iO ff) sec PirslJr, Some Comments on Arbltrntion, Leltlslntlon nnd the Uniform Act, 10 Vand.L.RcT. 6sa (lfl~il; id.. The Minnesota Uniform Arbltrntlon A('t. mul the Lincoln Mills Case, 4!! !llInn.L.Re\'. 333 (10081. For restrictive interpretation, see Knickerbocker Allen(!,\" 'f'. Holz. 4 N.'f.2d 24G, 173 N.'t.S.2d ere. 149 N.E.2d 885 (1958). 18. See e. g.. Ark.Stat §§ 34-501-34-510 (194n. Cf. Comment, 56 ColL.Re\,. 902. 903. n. O. S (195G). 19. Robinson \". Robinson. 2flr. N.'t. 7i8. 71 N.E.2d 214 (1947); Note, 40 Col. L.Re\". S!1 (1940). See also Berk 'f'. Berk. 8 Misc.2d 732, 171 N.Y.S.2d 592 (957) (rabblnic:al board). 20. But as to custody. see HUl v. BUl, 109 Mise. 1035, 104 N."f.S.2d 155 (1951). convenieDs without even discussing the agreement (between an DIlnois corporation and an Argenunn citizen) to arbitrate in Argentina. 23. Farr & Co. v. Cia. Intercontinental De NaTI· gacion de Cobn, 243 F.2d 342 (2d Oir.1957); Bnltie \'. General Cellulose Co., 23 N.J. ri3S. 129 A.2d 805 (1957): R~publique Fran~ise ,'. Cellosllk Mr~. Co., 124 N.'f.S.2d 93, 99 (Sup.1953): D. S. Stern. -suJU'a note 14, at 5i3; Popkin and Jacobson, Juris' . diction over the Non-Resident In Arbitration Proceedings, 17 N.Y.UL.Re\". 527 (1940).
24. Cf. Kentuel.-y RiTer Mllls T. Jackson, 206 F.2d 111 (6th Cir., 19::i3) (under U. S. Arbitration Act,: and in general Note, 31 Col.L.Re\'. OiD. 086 (1931).
25. The Atlanten. 252 U.S. 313. 40 S.Ct. 3.'i2 (]920l; The Batter Bldg. Materials Co. T. Kirlo;ehner, loa:! Conn. I, 110 A.2d 404 (1954): American Locomoti\"e Co. \". Cbemicnl Research Cort1.. 1'il F.2d lUi (6tb Cir. 1948), cert. den. 336 U.S. 909. 69 S.Cl 015 (lfJ.4UI : E. I. Du Pont de Nemo\1rs & Co. ,'. LyleR & L:IDI: Construction Co.• 219 F.2d 828 (4th Cir.19:s5). eert. den. 349 U.S. 956, 75 S.Ot. 882. SS4 (955); In ro Aller's Petition, 47 Ca1.2d 189. 302 P.2d 2M (197l(J1: Cox T. English-American UndeMvriters. 142 F.SuPI). 824 <N.D.Cal.195G). re\"'d 245 F.2d 330 (9tb I!ir. 1957); Anno•• 3 AL.R.2d 383.

f: ...




Vynlor't: CAfle. 8 Co. ROil. ~Oh. S2n, 17 Eng.Rep. rul:i, 59i, 600 (1000), suprn 5 42 note 9.

6. See c. I!. Toulmin, Dil!est of tbe

I.AW~ of tbe Stote or Alnbama (1823) 9, Arbltrntion (lSOD).

7. Jones. supra 1I0te 4, at 210. 21S. 8. W. R. Grimshaw Co. 'f'. Nazareth Literary & Bene\"olent In8t.. 113 F.Supp. 004. 5i2 (E.D.Ark. 19:i3\. &-c Simpson. SJl(>C'lfi(' EnforN'ment nf A rllltrntion ContTnets, 83 U.Pa.L.Re\'. 100, 102 (l{}34). See infra ! !!OS notes 19-21.

13. JudJre Frnnk In KulukuncU,: Rhlpplnl: Co. ,'. Amtorg Trndln~ Corp., 12G F .2(1 Ois. f1~" (:!.1 Cir.10-1:!). For Instances of judicial reOJolCllllll1t cil'Il'rmillCll hr tills doctrine sec e. Jr. llcnl'hlllll Y. Jamc:>:towu. Yranklln and Clenrfield It. It .. 211 N.Y. H4G, 10~ N.E. 653 (]914); CocnJls T. Nnzlldes. 80S lll. 1:i:.!, 139 N.E. !).j (]f)23): and In genernl HeUmau, Arhltration Agreements and tbe Contllct of Lnws. 3S "rale L.J. 617 (1929): Huh·er. Arbitration of Commercial Disputes. 15 Vn.L.Rev. 238 (1n29); Notes, 28 CotL.Be,·. 4i2 (1928); 13ij A.L.It iO, 86.

~1 ..


9. Tober T. Bristol Co., 3 Story SOO, 824, 23 Fed.Cas. 1318, 1321 (C.C.D.Mass.l~~). S«? also e. J:. Christenson 'f'. Cudahy Packing Co., 198 cal. 6&i. 247 P. 2(}7 (1926); First Ecclesiastical Soc'y T. Besse. 98 Conn. 616. U9 A. 903 (1923); Ames Canning Co. v. Dexter Seed Co., 195 Iowa 12S5, 190 N.'W. 107 (1922); Big Vein Pocohontas Co. 'f'. Browning, 137 Va. 3-!. 120 S.E. 24i (1923) i Annos., 93 A.L.n. 107S i 135 A.L.R. 79.
10. Riez1er 600. II.

6 Corbin on Contracts (1951) 733. 738. For an instance of lengtby and expensive arbitration proceedlngs, see Electrical Researeb Products v. Vitaphone Corp•• 20 Del.ab. 4li. 171 A. 738 (lD34). See also Park Const. Co. v. Independent School Dist., 209 Minn. 182. 296 N_W. 4i5, 485 (1941) (dissent).

See Textile 'Workers Union T. Lincoln )fills, 352 U.S. 821. i7 S.Ct. 54 (19:;;), and In ~neral Comment, 56 CotL.Rev. 902, 903 (1956) with full citations. In addition, see for tbe law of Tennessee, Grant v. Atlns l'owder CO.. 241 F.2d 715 (6th Oir. 1937). See also Stern. The Contllct of Laws In Commercial Arbitration, 17 Law & Cont.Prob. 56; (1952); PhUips. Arbitration nnd Contllcts of Laws: A Study of Benevolent Compulsion, 19 Corn.L.Q. 197 (1934); Curtis, Comparison of Recent Arbitration Statutes. 13 A.B.A.J. 56i (1927) : Sturges, Some General Standards for a State Arbitration Statute, 1 Arb.J. (n. s.) 194 (1952). On the conltitutionallty of arbitration statutes, see Anno., 55 A.L.R.2d 432.



21. See Burkin 'f'. KaU, 280 App.DlT. 740. 147 N.T.S.
2d 2 (1955), rev'd on other Ilround sub nom. Application of Burkin, 1 N.Y.2d 570, 136 N.E.2d 862 (1956). See also Martocci v. Martocci, 2 111se.2d 330, 42 N.Y.S.2d 222 (1943).


22. See e. &. Amtorg Trading Corp. 'f'. Camden Fibre Mills. S04 N.Y. 519, ml, 109 N.E.2d 600, 60i (1952)
ro.S.S.R. Cbamber of Commerce): "Camden cbose to do busiDess with Amtorg and to accept • • • arbltration In Russia:· 1t mar not now ask tbe ~urts to relieve It of tbe contractual obligations it assumed." See also United States Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.c.A. § 3; International Refugee Organ· ization 'f'. Republic S. S. Corp.. 93 F.Supp. 798 (D.C.Md.l950). But cf. James H. Rhodes & Co. 'f'. Cbausovsky, 137 N.J.L. 459, 60 A.2d 623 (1948), refuSing to d1sm1ss under the doctrine of forum nOD

Fairclough. Dodd & Jones, Ltd. v. J. H. Vantol, Ltd., [1957] 1 W.L.R. 136; Peter Cassidy Seed C/,., Ltd. T. Osuustukkukauppa 1. L.. [195j] 1 'W.l •• lL 2i3, botb stressing the advantages of coun O\'er arbitration proceedings in some cases.


15. For a history of New l:ork legislation, see Jones. supra note 4, at 211.


27. See Meacbam v. Jamestown, F. & C. n. 211 N.'f. 346, 105 N.E. 653 (1914): Paramount Famous Lask,. Corp. 'f'. United States, 28:! U.S. SO, 51 S.Ct. 42 (1930) (contract between motion pictur(' producers and exhibitors. 'f'iolatl9n of Sherman Act); Matter of American Rail & Steel Co., 308 K't. :Su, 127 N.E.2d 562 (1955); San Joaquin Valler TomRto Growers Ass'n v. Herschel Canning Co., 130 Cal.







§ 44



and secondly the judge's freedom in inter· preting the agreement to the effect that a change in circumstances prior to referral was not intended to be covered by such consent The answers to all these questions may vary with the applicable law.

§ 44. Choice of law. The law of choice of law determining the validity and enforceability of arbitration agreements "has been called CIa studied neglect or a calculated confusion." 1 The hornbook rule purports to solve these questions by subjecting them to the lex fori as questions of "procedure.'" This rule is contrary to those prevailing in all other countries including Great Britain,3 and of doubtful validity. No modem court will, of course, deny its machinery to the enforcement of an arbitration agreement on the ground that the contract was concluded, or was to be perfonned, in a state not providing for such a machinery."' But there is
App.2d 119. 2i8 P.2d 448 (1055): Princeton Rayon Corp. v. Gayley lnll Corp.• :mn N.Y. 13, 121 ~.E.2d 729 (1053): Instltnto Cllbano de Esrnhlll~nr.lon del Azncal" v. T/V Golden West. 246 F.2d 802 (2d Clr. 195il. cert. den. 355 U.S: 854. i8 S.Ct 152 (1951); IUld in genernl Domke. Arbitration [l!).l);j); An· nun! Snrvey, 31 Y. Y. U.L.Rev. 511, 518 (1056): Kagel, Labor and Commercial Arbitration under the CaliCornia Arbltrntlon Statute, 38 Calif.L.Rev. i09, 802 f. (1050). •• Stem, supra § 43 note 14, at 567. noting the lack of progress since Lorenzen's classic. Commercial Arbitration. 43 Yale L.J. n6, i33. i51 (1934). See also Notes. ;-,6 CoI.L.Rev. 002, 005 (1056); 135 A.L.R. 'j0. 01: and generally infra § 208 notes 16-32. 2. Berkovitz~. Arbib &: Houlberg, Inc., 230 N.Y. 261, 270. 130 ~.E. 288, 289. (1921). See also llarchant v. l(ead~lIorrlson lUg. Co., ~52 N.Y. ~, 169 N.E. :186 (1020). For criticism see e. g., Heilman, Arbi· tratlon agreements a.nd the Conflict of Laws, 38 Yale L.J. 617 (1929): Philllps. Arbitration IUld Con· dict of Laws. 19 Corn.L.Q. 107 (1934); Lorenzen, Commercial Arbltrntlon, 43 Yale L.J. 716, iSS, 757 (19M); Stumberg 276. 3. Lorenzen, supra note 2, at 151. As to the English law giving fun effect to the partIes' intention, see Stumberg 275, n. 61. For older English case law to the contrary .Anno., 135 A.L.R. 19, 81; and in gen· era! Ellenbogen. Engllsh Arbitration Practice, 17 Law &: Cont.Prob. 656 (1052): Dicey's COnflict of r.aws (7th ed. 1058) 1060f. 4. Gantt v. Felipe Y. Carlos Hurtado &: CIa. Ltdo., 297 ~. Y. 433, 19 N.E.2d 815 (1948) (North CaroUna contract).

considerable doubt whether a similar decision would be reached contrary to a lex contractus invalIdating the agreement,lS or whether a court would go so far as to compel under its own statute arbitration in a common law state. 6 And, in the light of present trends, there is little reason to assume that a modern court would, on the other hand, be inclined to invalidate an arbitration agreement under its own "procedural" law if this agreement was valid under the lex contractus.? But in view of the doubtful scope and vitality of the doctrine of Hughes v. Fetter ( § 38) , it does not seem likely that the Court will choose to resort to constitutional choice of law under Full Faith and Credit in order to assure the application of the law of a sister state concerning the enforceability of arbitration agreements.' Only a further:-strengthening of the Court's benevolent: attitude towards such agreements 8 could~ affect this prediction in cases where a
5. In: Gantt V'. Felipe Y. Carlos Hurtado Ie.. Cia, Ltd~: supm note 4; the court, though upholding t'he aJUeem«mt under the lex fori, reassured itself as to the:-V81hf~or- this- agreement under the lex con· traCtnS;~·Biit" see- concerning a possibly applicable generafRuIe ot Validation. infra § 208 notes 10-21.

forum should choose to refuse enforcement under its own law.

virtue of such agreements.13 Such treaties are in effect with China, Colombia, Denmark, Both federal and state courts must apply Germany, Greece, Haiti, Ireland, Iran, Israel, the United States Arbitration Act 10 to mari- Italy and Japan. Earlier treaties were satistime transactions and those involving inter- fied with clauses directed against invalidastate and foreign commerce.l l The Act tion. The more modern treaties, however, makes "valid, irrevocable, and enforceable" provide for the treatment of foreign arbitraany agreement of arbitration. Since the Su- tion awards as "conclusive in enforcement preme Court has for the purposes of the Erie proceedings" unless contrary to public policy, doctrine characterized the question as one of and as "entitled to privileges and measures substance,lJ federal courts must now follow of enforcement appertaining to awards renthe state conflicts rule except where transac- dered locally." In the United States each state is free to apply in this respect its own tions in interstate commerce are held to be rules applicable to local awards. Numerous governed by federal law within the purview draft conventions are designed to achieve a of the Act.ua more general and uniform regulation of inIn the field of international arbitration the ternational recognition; U but at the present United States has joined a fast growing move- time enforcement of agreements to arbitrate ment favoring the conclusion of treaties de- is still left to municipal law. 15 signed to assure validation and specific per- 13. See the Geneva Protocol of September 24. 1023; Rosenthal. The Promotion of International Comfonnance of arbitration agreements as well mercinl Arbltl1ltion, 6 (N.S.) Arbitr.J. 223 (1951) ~ as the enforcement of awards recovered by Int~rnntlonnl Chamber of Commeree. Commerclnl
10. 43 Stat. S83, as amended 61 Stat. 660, 0 U.S.C.A. H 1-3.
I I.

See e. g. Reynold Jamaica lfines v. Soci~te Navale Cnennalse. 239 F.2d 689 (4th Cir.l056).

(JO~6;; Inter-Ocean. Food Products v. York lIerr.antlle Co.• 206 App.Dlv. 426, 201 Y.Y.S. 536 (1923): Parsons & Whittemore v. Rederiaktiebolaget Nordst· jernan, 286 App.Dlv. 553, 145 N. Y.S.2d 466 (1955); Id., 141 F.Supp. !:!20 (S.DeN. Y.l956): with Nippon {(l-Ito Kaisha, Ltd. v. Ewing.Thomas Corp., 313 Pa. 442. 110 A.. 286 (1934): Rosenthal. v. Ber· man, 14, N.J.Super. 348, 82 A.2d 455 (1951). See also PhIllips, supra note 2, at 217.

7. lI111er v. American Ins. Co., 124 F.Supp. 160. 163 (W.D.Ark.1954). But see the lleacham case, supra § 43 note 13: AktieSelskabet K. F. K. v. Rederiak· tiebolaget Atlanten, 250 F. 935 (2d Clr.l018), aJf'd 252 "U.S". 313. 40 S.Ct. 332 (1920) (refusing to apply the valldating laws of Sweden and Denmark). For erltle1sm see Stem, supra f 43 note 14, at 570. See niso infra § 208 note 20. 8. Oompare Vltaphone Corp. v. Electrical Research Products, 19 Del.Ch. 247, 166 A. 255 (1933), rev'd on othel" ground 20 DeLOh. 417. 171 A. i38 (1934), re. fusing to gfve e1fect to a lex loci rendering the agreement enforceable, with Gantt v. FeUpe Y. Oarlos Hurtado & 010., Ltda., 297 N.Y. 433, 19 N.E.2d 815 (1048). enforcing such an agreement under the lex fort_ 9. See Bernhardt v. Polygraphie Co., 350 U.S. 198, 76 S.Ct. 273- (1958).

12. Bernbardt v. Polygrnphic Company of America, 350 U.S. 108, 76 S.Ct 213 (to56t For history and further analrsis see Kocbery, The Enforcement of Arbitration agreements in the Federnl Courts: Erie v. TompkIns. 3D Corn.L.Q. 14 (1053); Comment. ~6 CoLL.Rev. 002. 006 (1056). See also John W. John· son, Ine, v. 2:500 Wisconsin Ave., 08 U.S.App.D.C. 8, :!31 F.2d i61, 103 (1056): Local 10 v. Buckeye Cotton on Co., 236 F.~d ii6 (6th Cir.1956), cert. den. 334 U.s. 910, 77 S.Ct. 1293 (1951).

12a. Robert Lawrence Co. v. Devonshire FabriCS. Inc., 271 F.2d 402 (2d Clr.1950), cert. granted and dlsm. on stip. 364 U.S. 801, 81 S.Ct. 27 (1060). See Notes, 60 Colwn.L.Rev. 227 (1060), 69 Yale L.J. 847 (1960). Cf. Lummus Co. v. COmmonwealth on Refining Co.. 280 F.2d 915, 024 n. 9 (lst Cir.l060), cert. den. 364 U.S. 911, 81 S.Ct 214 (1060). See generally 6 Corbin on Contracts (1951, Supp.1961) n 1433-1444.

Arhitmtlon and the Law throlUrhout the World (1051) : nnd particularly Nussbaum. Treaties on COmmercial Arbitration-A Test of International Private Law Ledslation. 56 Harv.L.Rev. 219 (1942) : Nussbaum. Stantsvertrill::e etc.. 4 Arcbiv des VOl· kerrechts 385 (1954): Domke, Arthur Nussbaum, The Pioneer of International Commercial Arbltrn· tion. 5i Col.L.Rev. 8 (1051). See also Wahle, International Aspects of Arbltrntion Reform. 10 Arb. 1. 140 (1055): Bayitch. Conllict Law in United States Treaties (1000) 42.. See also Intra § 208 notes 23-25. 14." See Pirslg, Toward a Uniform Arbitration Act. 0' Arh.J. 115 (1054) (Interamerlcan): Rosenthal. Enforcement of International Awnrds, 9 Arb.J. 42 (1054) (International Chamber of Commerce); International Institute for the Unification of Private' Law, Draft of a Uniform Law on Arbitration in Respect to International Relntlons. U.P.L.ID54, Draft IU (3) 68. See also Unldroit Report (l05i) ~1; International Trade Arbitration (Domke ed' 1058) 283ff. ; Benjamin, The Work of the Economic:COmmission for Europe in the Field of International Commercin! Arbitration, 1 IntComp.L.Q. 22 (1058)."
15. See Gllbert v. Burnstlne, 255 N.Y. 348, 357, 174 N.E. 700. 108 (1031).




(Herein of International and Interstate JurUKHction)
INTRODUCDON Clearly, an American court wDI be more likely to grant recognition to the judgment of a sister. state, which is presumably based upon at least similar standards of substantive and procedural justice, than to the judgment of a foreign country whose unlmown laws and procedures necessarily induce uneasiness if not suspicion. Moreover, the Constitution of the United States has, at least in its modern interpretation, severely limited the courts' freedom in passing upon sister state judgments. Both types of con1licts situations are, nevertheless, traditionally dea1t ~th ~under one heading. This can perhaps be' exPlained on two grounds: on the one hand, sister state judgments were originally treated under principles of international comity, like extranational judgments. And, on the other hand, extranational judgments have gradually been accorded the benevolence now enjoyed by sister state judgments. I have attempted to reconcile the needs for common and separate treatment by alternately choosing between the two approaches in accordance with judi§ 45.



ment court's "jurisdiction." This terminol.

ogy has been maintained in the title of this chapter, which deals primarlly with the forum's (local) and the judgment court's (intemational or interstate) jurisdiction. But to avoid terminological difficulty, the problems concerning the judgment court's jurisdiction proper (§§ 57 ff.) will, after an analysis of theories and techniques (§ § 46, 47), be preceded by a separate discussion of the problems relating to the rendering authority (u 48-53), finality (§ 54), and procedural (§ 55), and substantive propriety of adjudication (§ 56). This will be followed by an analysis of the scope and effect of recognition by enforcement (§ 61) and defense (§ 62 ff.); and, in Chapter Three, by a presenta~on of the confiicts problems which, both as to jurisdiction and recognition, typically arise in cases of divorce (§§ 71 ff.), support (§§ 82 ff.), children's custody (U 86 ff.) and annulment (§§ 90 ff.). It might have been more appropriate analytically to include the discussion of these specific problems in the general treatment of the first two chapters. But it was felt that lawyer, teacher and student will consider it more convenient to :find in one place the' case law dealing with this practically cial preferences. most important field of the law of conflict of Requirements for the recognition of for- laws. Frequent cross-references are designed eign judgments, including the scope of res to establish the systematic relations both judicata (§ § 61 ff.), are often loosely and with that "special part" and the earlier disgenerally referred to as inherent in the judg- cussion of local jurisdiction (§§ 11 fl.). 160

Civil law. Even in the civil law with its many independent units, 'the problem of the recognition of foreign judgments has been of comparatively recent origin. The classical Roman practice of freely executing Roman judgments anywhere within the provinces of the realm,l was apparently carried over into the ideological entity of the Christian Empire of the Middle Ages, J and fortified by the natural and international law concepts of the 16th and 17th centuries.3 Even when the rise of the dogma of sovereigntY' came to arouse misgivings concerning the recognition of foreign judgments, respect for the susceptibilities of the foreign sovereign continued to . preclude re-examination of his decrees based on his accepted "jurisdiction. tt G Only with the later growth of nationalism was this attitude of international courtesy (often rationalized by references to tacit agreement or consent) t turned into a "mere comity"

which left to each state complete freedom in scrutinizing the :findings of foreign courts. In present-day European law and its derivatives, nearly all divergent opinions and attitudes have survived, ranging from a fiat denial of recognition by insistence upon a trial de novo; G through a law granting recognition on condition of reciprocity; to a nearly unconditional enforcement of foreign judgments."
England. The unifying force of the Empire in Continental Europe had its English

6. Frenell bostll1tv to foreign judgments (noted and reclproeated in iillton v. G\1:rot. 159 U.S. 113. 16 S.Ot. 139 (1895). Infra note 26). has been traced back to Article 121 of the so-called Code Micbaut. an ordinance of 1629. wblch provided that an~ foreign jndgment recovered n,::alnst French citizens ma,. be liti,::ated anew. The scopp of tbis provisioD is controvel'!lial. S('(' Batlff",1 820; FrnnC(>~akis. ~ Tra\"8ux (1u.i1) 120 ff. For 0 Similar Dutch doctrine. see Masureel v. Balms. Rb.Alkmoar. Jan. 27, 1~. N.J.195:;. no. 500. 4 Ned.TUdschr.lnt.Recbt 97 (10:;7). See also Johnson. Forei/rll .1udllments III Quebec. 35 Can.Dar He,·. 011 nO:;i). Tbe Tcntatlve Draft for a Reform ot the eMl Code Indicates n more liberal attitude. ComUI! Fran~ls de DIP. Codification du DIP (l95G) 22fl fr. See also Schlacbt('r Neue Aspekte Ztlr FroJ:e der Vollstreckbnr· I. DIIreSt. De re judlcntn, 42, 1, 15, 1 (Ulpiauus): ' erklilrung auslllndischer UrteUe In Frnnkreich, 100 "Sententinm Romae dlctam etlam In provlnclls pos· Arch.Ch·.Pr. 00; (lO:ti): Castel, Jurisdiction and se prnesldes, sl boo: lussl fuerlnt. ad finem persequl MoneJ" Jndgm~nts Rendered Abrond: Anglo-AmeriImperator noster cum patre. rescrlpslt." Supra § enn a~d French PrQ('Uce Compared. 4 McGlll L.Bev. 2 note O.
Ire (1958). 7. Lorenzen. Tbe Enforcement of American JudI!· ments Abroad, 20 'rale L.J. ISS (l019): Lenhoff,

Melli. Das Internationale Zlvllprozessrecbt Ruf Grund der Tbeorle. Gesetzgebunlr und Praxis (1906) 13: "The fact that there existed In the Middle Ages among the Christian peoples a Jus commune resting upon lloman law, made the enforcement of judgments appear as a very natural precept of justice and of mutunl assistance" (transl.). So On Suarez' universal concept of jurisdiction, see Nussbaum, A Concise History of the Law of Nations (19-!7) 69. See supra I 2 note 11.

4. See e. g. on Bodin's SIx Lines de la R~publlque (1576), Nussbaum, op. elt. supra note 3, at 56. 6. "To undertake to examine the justice of a definitive sentence, is to attack the jurisdIction of him wbo bas past it." 1 Vattel, The Law of Nations or PrinCiples ot the Law of Nature: Applled to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns (trans1.l760) 148 (Book II, Cb. VII, § 84); infra note 10. On Vattel's theory and Influence see KoJ'Owicz. Modern Doctrines of the Sovereignty of States, 5 Ned.Tijdschr.lnt.R. 32, 88 (1958).
Ehrenzwelll Conflict of Uws-ll

• .'

lteciproelty: Tbe Le~nl Aspect of a Perennial Iden. 49 N.W.U.L.Re\". 752 (1955): Riezler 009 fr.: 2 Schnitzer. Handhuch des Internatlonnlen Privnrrecllts (3d ed. 19:i8) 9OOD'.: Kallmann. Anerkennllng ltnd \"ollstreckunlr nnsliini!iscliE'r Zivllurteile und gerichtllcher Vergleiche. IDst. fUr lnt. Recht No.5 (1946): Riad, La Valeur Internationale des JU{r~ ments en Droit Compare (1955) ; Wengler, Les princ1pes g~raux du d. 1. p. et leurs confllts, 41 Re\".Crit.D.I.P. 59:; (1952): KenDed~. RccollDltion of Judgments ill Personam: Tbe Mean1ng of Beciprocit,., 3U Can.B.Rel'. 123 (195;); Jellinek, Die zwelseitlJreD Staatsvertrii/re Uber Anerkennung ausliindiseber Zivllurtelle (1953). On the mutual recognition of judgments wIthin the Common Market, see Nagel, 18 N.J.". 985 (1960). For indhidua1 studies on the "Enforcement ot AmerIcan Money Judgments and Arbitration Awards Abroad," see A.B.A., Sec. Int. &: Comp. L., 1938 Proceedings 99-139.

162 ,


Ch. 2'

§ 45



counterpart in the world community of commerce looking to the law merchant and the law of nations as applied in the courts of admiralty.s In 1667 Lord Nottingham could argue with the court's approv~ "that where sentence is obtained in a foreign admiralty, one may libel for execution thereof here, because all the Courts of Admiralty in Europe are governed by the civil law, and are to be assistant one to another." 9 And in many non-admiralty cases the same result was reached, as it was on the Continent, because it was "against the law of nations not to give credit to the judgment and sentences of foreign countries." 10 This practice may have found support in the practice of English courts not to take jurisdiction over foreign causes and thus to compel the plaintiff to seek justice in admiralty or foreign courts under foreign laws (§ 2). It was only equitable under such a practice to consider the foreign judgment as "conclusive." 11 Although English courts,
8. Page, Full Faith and Credit: The Discarded Con~t1tntlonnl Provision, [l948J Wls.L.Rev. 265, 273 (1048): ~umner, Full Faith nod Credit COl' Judicial Proceedings. 2 U.C.L.A.L.Rev. -HI (1955); Sack. Condiets of Lnws in the History of the English Law, 3 T.A W. A Century oC Progress 1835-1035, (1037) 342, 3!ju. Sel.Rend. 6; Holdsworth, Tbe Development of the Law l(erchllnt and Its Courts, 1 Select Essll78 In Anglo-American History (100i) 289. 9. .Jurado \". Gregory, 1 Ventris 32, 86 Eng.Rep. 23 (lG70). See also Wler'l4 Case, [1607] 1 Rolle, Abridgement 530, pI. 12 : Hughs v. CorneIlus, Sir T. Raym. 473. 8.1 Eng.Rep. 247 (1683) (using a reciprocity nrgnment). See In genernl Westlake••\. Treatise on Private International Law (6th ed.l012) 304; Yntema. The Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Anglo-American Law. 33 lllch.L.Rev. 112!l. 1143 (1035) ; ~adelmann. Full Faith nnd Credit to Judgments and Public Acts: A HistoricalAnalytical 'Reappraisal, 56 lllcb.L.Rev. 33, 42ft'. (1957) (on the early history of "faith and credit" to evidence); Dicey's Conflict of Laws (7th ed. 1(58) 1033ft'. 10. Cottlngton'S Case. In Kennedy v. CassilUs, 2 Swa.ns. 313. 326. 36 Eng.Rep. 625, 640 (1678). See Read. Recognition nnd Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (1038) 52ft'.; supra note 5. Cf. ~ussballm 231. II. Burroughs v. Jamtneau (Jamino). l(ose1y 1. 25 Eng.Rep. 235; 2 Strange 733. 93 Eng.Rep. 815 (1726). See also Boucher v. Lawson,.Cas.T.Hard. 85, 89, 95 Eng.Rep. 5.\ 56 (1734),

too, presumably influenced by Story's work,18 came to use comity language, there has never been a complete abandonment of the idea of compulsory recognition. Based perhaps on the Roman conception of the defendant's contractual submission,13 the assumption of a generally enforceable~ new judgment "obligation" of the defendant has become characteristic of English law.H A series of Acts of Parliament has endowed a gradually increas· ing number of judgments of both Commonwealth and foreign countries with domestic effect upon registration. t:S
United States. When' Story wrote his text in 1834, he found Vattel's respect for the for· eign sovereign's "definitive sentence," 16 more uniformly adhered to by common law courts than in the jurisprudence of Continental Europe. Nevertheless, he preferred to follow the approach of Chief Justice MarshaIl lT who, presumably following civil law reason· ing, subjected the foreign judgment to ex· amination of the rendering court's "lawful" jurisdiction over the cause and the parties. 1S The scope of further permissible scrutiny he held to vary according to whether the judgment was one in rem or in personam. The former, he thought, "ought to have universal
12. Grnveson 538f. See also 4 Phllltmore. Commentaries upon International Law. Private International Lnw or Comity (3d ed. 1889) 756fl'.; 1 Piggott. Foreign Judgments and Jurisdiction (10OS) 10. For earlier use In Ildmirnlty, see e. g. Power v. Whitmore. 4 1I. Ie S. 141. 1~0. 105 Eng.Rep. 787, inl (1815).
13. Supra

conclusiveness." 19 Judgments in personam, on the other hand, under a distinction founded in "international justice," so (though being an absolute bar as res judicata to any new suit by a losing plaintiff), were subject to examination "into the merits" if sued upon by a prevailing plaintiff.e1 For, the forum in executing a foreign judgment, acts u upon the principles of comity; and has, therefore, a right to prescribe the- terms and limits of that comity." ~ Unsettled, however, appeared the question how far a foreign judgment could be uimpeached" while being regarded as prima facie evidence of the claim.:3 Except for an interlude governed by the soon frustrated ideal of a world-embracing order,!4 American law has retained Story's comity theory in its original ambiguity.u In
19. Id. at 507. See Wtlllnms v. Armroyd. 7 Cranch (11 U.S') 423 (1813): Rapelje v. Emery, 2 DaIl. (2 U.S.) 231 (1795). For 11 lilter case, see Ennis v. Smith, 14 How. (55 U.S.) 300 (18;:;2). 20.

Story 407.

Ibid. See also Smith Y. Lewis, 3 Johns. 1:;7, 168 (N.Y.1808), per Kent. Ch. J., relying on the opinions of "most approved jurists on the law of IUltlOOS." Infra f 62. 22. Story 497.
23. StOlT GOB. 24. Supra 51 3f. 2 Beale, Conflict of Laws (103.1) 13'ii, regretting tbe "conCusion . . • introduced Into tbe law by the use of the term 'comity'" (nt 1370), concludes that "the order of the court, addressed to one who Is hound to ober, crelltes a legal duty of obedience." See also Rest. t 430. The circularity of thls statement Is obvious. 25. See e. g. Ingenobl v. Wnlter E. Olsen & Co•• 273 U.S. 541, 47 S.Ct. 451 (1927); Ritchie v. lIc~(ullen. lu9 U.S. 235 (1895); Zanzonico V. Neeld, 17 N.J. 400, 111 A.2d 712 (1955); Northern .uuminum CO. V. Law, 1iSr lId. 641,646. 141'A. 715,717 (1929): Dunstan v. Higgins, 138 N.Y. 70, 75. 33 N.E. 729, 730 (1893). See alSO Clubb v. Clubb. 402 Ill. 390, 84 N.E. 2d 366 (1040); Coolbom Y. Joseph, 100 Ga. i23, 25 S.E.2d 576 (1043): Yntema, The Enforcement of I!'oreign Judgments in anglo-American Law. 33 lUcb.L.Rev. 1129 (1935); Ehrenzwelg, Recognition of Custody Decrees Rendered Abroad. 2 Am.J.Comp. L. 167 (1053): Lenholf, 10 Rabels Z. 201 (1954); Note, 65 Harv.L.Rev. 818, 8M (1952); Anno., 148 A.L.R. 991.097. Clllifornia Is probably the only state specifically providing by statute for the enforcement of extranational Judgments. Section 1915. Code of Civil Pr0cedure. provides that such Judgments "shall have- the

the- words of the Supreme Court, comity is now "neither a matter of absolute obligation nor of mere courtesy and good will. It is the · recognition which one nation allows within its ten-itory to the legislative, executive, or judicial acts of another nation, having due regard both to international duty and con· venience, and to the rights of its own citizens · or of other persons who are under the protection of its laws.":e In this sense comity is of course nothing but "a statement of the con· fiict of laws rules of the forum," 21 and must receive its contents from the analysis of deci· sions concerning the scope of res judicata, i. e. the measure of permiSSible inquiry into merits, process, procurement and juris· diction of the foreign judgment. There are, however, a few general principles which we may state with some degree of assurance. They relate to the impact of the Constitution, to standards of recognition developed under the law of the forum, and to the relevance of reciprocity granted by the foreign country.
same eft'ect as In the country where rendered, and Iliso tbe same effect as linal judgments rendered In this Stllte." Bein~ nmch 100 sweepin~ in Its Inn· guage (it \vould give judgments of Co reign countries 11 greater effect than those of sister states). thls provision has remained Ineft'ecti\,e. It was passed ''wIth the evident object of assuring the ex· ecutlon of judgments rendered In Cnlltornla, against foreign, espeCially German, insurance companies in consequence of the enrthqnake." Lorenzen, The Enforcement of American Judgments Abroad, 20 Yale L.J.204 n. 129 (1010). See Comment,.JO CaUt.L.Rev. 93 (1002). But see for extranational di\,orces. infra § 73 notes 24. 24a. Decisions by Confederate courts. Insofar as Dot directed against the lawful government, were held valid for reasons of public order, rather than comity. Hom v. Lockhart, 11 Wall. (84 U.S.) 570 (1873). See also Cook v. Oliver,'! Woods 431, Fed.Cas..l.'fo. 3.164 (C.C.Ga.1810); French v. Tumlin. Fed.Cos.No. 5.104 (C.C.Ga.1811) ; Pepin v. Lacbenmeyer, 45 N.Y. 27 (1871).
28. HIlton v. Guyot. 159 U.S. 118. 16 S.Ct 139 (1895), Infra § 46 note 10. llinor, Conflict of Laws (1001) 6, having no trUck with vested rights (f 4 notes Sfl'.). tully relies on this statement.

125 note 41. In general see Lorenzen, supra note 1, Ilt 100; Cheshire 629t. 14. See e.g. Schibsby V. Westenhoiz, L.R. 6 Q.B. 155, 159 (1810): Godard v. Grny. L.R. 6 Q.B. 100, 148 (1870); Russell v. Smyth, I) lL Ie W. 810. 810, 152 Eng.Uep. 343, 347 (1842); Gutterldge, Reciprocity in Regnrd to Foreign Judgments, 13 Br. Yb.lnt.L. 49, 60 (1032). See also Bata v. Hill, 35 Del.Ch. 401. 130 .\..2d 159 (1058), atl"d sub nom. Bam \". Bata, Storey - , 163 A.2d 403 (Del. 1060), cel't., ~en. 366 U.S. 004, 81 S.Ct. 1926 (1961).
15. Infra § 61.

16. Supra note 5. 17. Rose v. Hlmely. 4 Cranch (8 U.S.) 240. 269 (1808);

supra § 3 note 4. IB. StOry492. See supra § 3 Dote 4.

27. Reese. The Status in This Country of Judgments Rendered Abroad, 50 Col.L.Rev. 183, 784 (1000).



Ch. 2

§ 46. Foreign commerce. One and a half centuries ago, the Massachusetts court saw "a peculiar propriety in respecting the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States upon this subject [conclusiveness of foreign judgments], because there is delegated to the national government an authority to regulate commerce, and because it is highly interesting to commerce that the same rule of decision in this respect should pervade the whole country. tI 1 This attitude could well have gained support from Justice Sutherland's famous dictum that "in respect of our foreign relations. . the state of New York does not exist"! But this dictum has not been followed. And it seems clear now that, unless and until the Supreme Court assumes wider authority in this field, every state of the Union will, in the absence of selfexecuting or implemented treaties,3 adopt its .own conditions for the recognition of extranational judgments.

one state, New York, will recognize divorces obtained by forum dOmicillariesin foreign countries, although the majority rule seems to consider such divorces, and thus their recognition, to be contrary to due process of laW.1 Only a decision of the United States Supreme Court can remove existing doubt.8 "Oomity". Outside the range of possible constitutional limitations, the recognition of extranational judgments is governed only by principles of "comity". American courts may refuse such comity to extranational judgments which do not comply with the jurisdictional standards of the forum. Thus, a foreign decree of adoption has been denied recognition for having violated a forum statute which required common residence of the parties prior to the adoption. '1 Other cases of this type will be dealt with below (§ 59). Even though an extranational judgment may have satisfied the standards of forum law, it will in general be denied recognition if 1t fails to comply with the jurisdictional requirements of its own la'w. In a leading lish case, much referred to in this country, it has been held, however, that recognition may in such a case be given if the foreign court was one of "competent" jurisdiction "from an international point of view," and if such recognition would not be "contrary to natural justice." 8 If this last condition is held coRecognition of Judgmcnts in Personam: The MeanIng of lleclproclty, s:; Can.B.Re\". 123, 12G (l!Ni). But ~ec. Aluwna Banl'l:renosscllschaft '.. Perrell. 21 Conn. Super. G, 141 A.2d 2W (19u;) (Swiss extraterritorial seMlce upbeld).




§ 46










extensive with "due process", American constitutional standards of local jurisdiction (§ § 25 ff.) may be detenninative of the recognition whether or not the foreign judgment has complied with the rules prev~g in its own

In a "magnificent dictum" 9 in Hilton v. Guyot, 10 the Supreme Court purported to establish a requirement of reciprocity for the recognition of extranational judgments.ll Assuming constitutional freedom to do so,U several states have rejected the Hilton doctrine. These states include New York and probably Connecticut, Georgia. Dlinois, Louisiana and Puerto RiCO.13 Califomia has enalso Caruso T. caruso, 100 N.J.Eq. 130, 14~ A. 882 (19301 (\"Iolatlon of Italian venue rule): \'anqu('lin T. Dounrd. 15 C.D. eN.s.) 341. 143 En~.Itep. Sl. (18G3) (same): and in general Nussbaum 244. Cr. Harper, Collaternl Attack upon ForelJ:tn Judr:ments: The Doctrine of Pemberton T. Huglles, 20 Mlch.L. ReT. GOl (1931). The editors of DJcer's Conflict of Laws (7th ed. 195R) 1009 f. haTe now abandoned the "Pemberton doctrine," supra.
·9. Johnston \". Compalmle Gent'ralc 'l'ransatlantiQne, 242 N.'I. 381. ]52 N.E. 121. 123 (1920).

;;:.:. ~

acted a statute precluding application of th reciprocity requirement.u Nevertheless, il view of the dearth of decided cases,lI5 the Hil· ton rule is still the starting point for the ex· amination of the laws of many states. IS Fed. eral courts in diversity cases will probably have to follow the state rule. 1'1
tens, 284 N.Y. 863, 31 N.E.2d 489 (1940) (Germam'): Tama~ T. 20th Century Fox Film Corp., 25 N.Y.S.2d 8n9 (N.'I'.Co.19.U) (Bunlf8ry); MOl'I:tan T: Drewry, 285 App.Dh·. 1, 135 N.'I'.S.2cl IiI (1954); Perkin~ T. de Witt, 270 App.Di'·. 903, III N.'I.S.2d ;52 ml;i~); Dagher T. Dagher, 146 N.Y.S.2d 50; (SUp.Cl.]9!'IIi) (clictum). See also Trucson Steel Co. of CI1n:IIJU. Ltd. T. Bie~ler, 300 Ill.App. ISO, 28 N.E.2d 623 (1!f.lS) (Ontario); FIshc.>r. Browll & Co. \". Flcldln~. G7 Conn. 91, 3.J A. iJ.! (1895); Ponce T. Badrena e Hijo, lne.. 'i4 P.n.n. 210 (1002); Godct T. RCJ;ristrar, 31 I'.JUt 6;0 (1923). Note, ~ Rc\".Jur.Unh·.P.n. 428 (10~I:iJ: Coulhorn ,'. Josepb. lO~ Ga. 723, 2ii S.E.2d :ml (1943) (EnJ:tland): Succession of }o"jtzgerald, 192 lAi. 'i:!0, i3:.;, 189 So. 116, 11; (1939).







See supra f 45 note 25.

Due process. "Due process" has occasionally been invoked, however, to prevent a state from giving recognition to the judgment of a foreign country whose jurisdictional rules were held contrary to American conceptions. Thus, an Ohio court felt precluded from enforcing a Quebec judgment against an Ohio motorist for damages arising from a Quebec accident, because that judgment was based on constructive service which lacked the safeguards established by the Supreme Court for interstate cases.' On the other hand, at least
•• Baxter T. New England Marine Ins. Co., 6 Mass. 277,4 Am.Dee 123 (1810).

Eng- '


15. See Nussbaum, Jurisdiction and Forel~n JudJrments, 41 CoI.L.Re\".221. 23; (1941); and In J;rCDl'ral Stumberg 13:!. For oldcr cases see Anno., 4G A.IJon. 430.


Hilton T. Gurot. ]59 U.S. 113. lG S.Ct. ]:tfl (]s.rm). The lower court. without examlllln~ the merits. had entered a jud~ent tor a French finn ngnln~t United State~ cltizenf; In n suit upon a Frencll mOIl(';t" judge ment. The Supreme Court (besld~ con!'llderJn~ se\"ernl other factors. includlnJ:t the defendant's U. S. Citizenship), re\"ersed because "the comltr of our nation does not require us to ~i\"e conclush'e ('ffect to the jtJd~~t8 of the COtlrtf: of France." In "Jew of tbe "want of reciprOCity, on tile ))Rrt of France, as to the effect to ue given to the judJl111ents of tills and other foreign countries." (at 210). Sc.>e al~o RItchie T. McMullen, 100 U.S. ~, 1G S.Ct. lil (1895).

Infra f 78 notes 2, 4-

United States T. Belmont. SOl U.S. 324, 331, 57 S. Ct. 758. 761 (1937). Cf. Jaffe, Judicial Aspects of .. 796 (1950). Foreigll Relations (1933); LeTltan. The Foreign Re- 7. Guaranty Bank & Trust Co. T. GIlIles, 8 N.J. 88. 8S lations Power: AD AnalysiS of Mr. Justice SutherA..2d 889 (19:»1), Infra f l)() note 2L But see Taintor, land's Theory, 55 'Iale L.J. 46i (19:tG). Supra I 8 Adoption in the Contllct ot Laws, 15 U. of Plttsb.L. note 4. ReT. !!2!!, ~2 (1954). Cl. Matter ot Adoption, 180 Mise. 793, 226 N.'I.S. 445 (Surr.1921) (Ontario); S. Supra f 7 note 18. In re Johnson's Estate, 100 Cal,App.2d 73, 228 P.2d 4. BoITlu T. Talcott. 102 F.Supp. 979 (N.D.Ohlo 1951). 105 (1950) (Norway). See also fotra f 51 notes 2;tf. See also supra f 6 note 32; Infra H 55 note 26, 59 note 5. The same Quebec statute was In"olved in a 8. Pemberton v. Hugbes, [1899] 1 Cb. 781 (deficiencY in semce under Florida law). Thls decision has Britlsb Columbia case where the court refused enbeen attacked as ''uDsound.'' Stumberg 115. See forcement on grounds of "reciprocity," Kennedy,

6. See in general Reese, Tbe Status in this CountrJ" of Judgments Rendered Abroad, 50 Col.L.ReT. 783,

fl. Sec In ~enerol Reese, The Status In thlfl Country of Judgments Rendered Abroad, 50 Col.L.Re,·. 'iS3, 790 (1950); Nussbaum, Jurisdiction and FOreign Judgments, 41 ColL.Re\". 221, 235 (1941); Nadelmann. Reprisals against American Judgments, 65 Ban'.L.Re\". 1184, 118'i (1952); Note, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Personam; ReciprOCity, 10 La.L.Re\". 319 (1930).

For cases follo\\'ln~. or at lenf;t opprovln;:. thc Hilton rule. fl(!(! c. J:t. Gull ,'. Collstam, 1€N F$lIf'JI. 10; (D.C.Colo.1f);j2); In re Yanderborght. Ol KJ~. 2cl 4; (Ohio Comm. Pleas Curnbo~n Co. 10:0111: Northl'rIl Aluminum Co. T. Law. 1ii; l\Jd. 641. 147 A. 7l~ (]{)~O). See ulso l\:cnned)·, ll<~coJ:tnltioll of JUf!&t. numts ill I>ersonQJD: Tbe MenniJ)~ of ll~cil)roc1IY. 3:i Cnll.D.lteT. 1~ (19~i), concerniJ)g the Canadillll lip. proach; nntl tJl(~ difference betwccn reciprocity or reco;mitiou ond tlle so-calJetl reciprocity rl'l,ulre. ment. kered to the relation between juclJ;rment nud forum low, established in the nmcll dlSClu~sed ""tie of TraTers \". Bolley, [1953J 2 All.E.n. 7!J.J: [1953] P. 246 (C.A.). See Griswold. The RecinMIl'l11 ItecoJ:tnition of Dh·orce Decrees. 6; Han'.I... Ih!,.. ~':!:I (10:;4); :Kennedy, "ItecJproclty" in tile llt!('OJmlllon of }'orei;m JudJ:tments: The ImpllcatioUls of Trn ..crs T. Bolley, 32 Can.n.Rev. 859 (19-~4).

Supra text at note S.

IS. Johnston T. Compagnie ~rale TransatlantiQu~ 242 N.'I. 881, 152 N.E. 121 (1926) (distinguishing the Hilton case); Cowans T. Ticonderoga Pulp & Paper Co., 210 App.DI\". 120, 21D N:r.S. 2&l (192i), aff'd 24G N.Y. 603, 159 N.E. 669 (192;) (Quebec); In re James, 221 App.Di". 321,223 N.Y.S. li.J (102;), re"'d on other grounds 248 N.'I. 1. 161 N.E. 201, reb. den. 248 N.'I. 623, 162 N.E. 5lSO (1928) i Martens V. Mar-

On the 1959 Canadian Reciprocal Enforcement of JudJrolents Act, see Feltbam, 1 U.B.C.L.RcT. 22!: (1060). See also Infra I 72 note 43. In the 1m. portant case ot Bata v. Bata, Storey _ , l(}:\ A.2d 493, 505 (Del.l960). cert. den. 800 U.S. 96-4. 8J S.Ct. 1926 (1961), the Bnton case was dlstln~ishe(! 011 tile ground that it ''merely announced a specla: exceptio)) (to 0 rule of general recognition] iI. favor of AmerIcan nationals."


17. For earlier federal deciSiOns to the contrary. ~, Note, as Com.L.Q. 423, 424, n. 3 (19::i3). Conccrnin: the applicabUlty of the Erie doctrinc see e. g. Rcefl' supra note 11; Goodrich 6Oi; Note, 80 Geo.L ..:. 4;8 (1942). .As to admiralty see infra § 50 notes 3::.






Ch. 2

§ 47




Where the doctrine of reciprocity is not rejected outright, it may be subjected to important qualifications. In the first place, it is not applicable as to judgments in rem. IS Secondly, where it is applicable, lack of reciprocity must be pleaded and proved by the party repudiating the foreign judgment, whether that judgment has been invoked as a cause of action or as a defense. lo Further limitations may be expected in view of the strong objections raised against the fundamental soundness of the rule. Such objec· tions emphasize that "it is for the govern· ment, and not for its courts, to adopt the prinCiple of retorsion;" ~o and that such political measures should not be taken at an individual's expense.u This last objection, which applies to all rules of reciprocity,=s is particularly relevant in a country like the United States. The alien involved will often be an immigrant from a country allegiance to which he has long foresworn. Finally "we cannot be unmindful of the necessity for mutual forbearance if retaliations are to be avoided." U With increasing
Hilton v. Guyot. supra. note 10. nt 167: International Firearms Co. v. Kingston Trust Co•• R N.Y. 2d -lOO, 189 N. Y.S.2d Dll. 160 N.E.2d ~6, sas (1950). 19. null v. Constam, 105 F.Supp. 108 (D.C.Colo.ltr:>2l. For an earlier view see Smith v. Lewis, 3 Johns. lSi, 3 Am.Dec. -!69 (N. Y.l808).
18. 20. 21.

international· understanding we may expect continuing assimilation of our rules concern.. ing the recognition of extranational and ex· trastate judgments.!" The conclusion of bi· lateral treaties might be desirable to promote this result.215 But even in their absence, pro· gressive abandonment of the "archaic" 28 reciprocity requirement abroad 2T cannot fail to affect American doctrine.




§ 47. Ever since the beginning of the last century, recognition of sister state judgments has been held to be compelled by the Clause of the U. S. Constitution requiring Full Faith and Credit 1 "in each state to the public acts,

records and judicial proceedings of every oth· er state;" and by the implementing statute of May 26, 1790~'as reenacted and amended! in Section 1738 of the Judicial Code. This statute provides now that "Acts, records and judicial proceedings (of any State, Territory, or Possession) or copies thereof, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken." 3 Although the Clause in terms prescribes recognition "in each state" only for the "judicial proceedings in every other State:' the same rule has been held to apply to federal courts regarding state judgments;' on the one
accordance with the "principles as well ot natural justice as of the common law"). See also under the .~rticles ot Confederation Phelps v. IIolker. 1 DnU. :!r.l (Pn.1iSS) (npparently rejecting full faith nnd credit, btU limited in its holding to the effect of Coruia:n attachment); Kibbe \'. Kibbe, Kirby 110, 126 (Conn.1 iSG) ("full credence" denied in a similnr cnse); Jenkins V. Putnam, 1 Bay 8 (S.Car.Lnw 1i&J) ("due credit"). For nn example ot colonial legislation see Connecticut (Colony) Law. statutes etc., The Code ot 16.jO, Title Verdicts (1650) p. 100: ". . . MY \'erdlct or sentence ot nny courts within the colonyes . . shall have a due respect in the se\'ernll courtes of this jurissdictlon • • • and shnll bee accounted good evidence • • ." (In favor ot a. domiclllnry of a colony. and upon condition ot reciprocity). In general see Costigan. The History of the Adoption. ot Section 1 ot Article IV etc., 4 Col.L.Re\·. oliO (1004) ; 1 Cross key, Politics and the Constitution (10;)3) 5Uff.: Jackson. Full Faith and Credit-The La\vyer's Clause ot the Constitution, 45 ColL.Re•. 1 (1945); Reese nnd J obDSon. The Scope ot Full Faith and Credit to Judgments, 49 Col.L.Rev. 153 (1949) ; Rheinsteln, The Constitutional Bases ot JUrisdiction. 22 U.Chl.L.Rev. TI5 (1035); Sumner, Full Faith and Credit to Judicial Proceedings, 2 U.C.L.A.L.Rev. 441 (1955); Nadelmann, Full Fnith nnd Credit to Judgments and Public Acts: A. Historical-Analytical Reappraisal, 56 lIicb.L.Rev. 33, 38, 40, 62 (1951). 2. To Include II Acts" In accordance with the Clause itself. .As to the possible effect ot this amendment, see supra § 9 note 6. . 3. 62 Stat. 141 (1948), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738. 4. lUlls v. Duryee. 1 Crnnch (11 U.S.) 481 (1813); Huron Bolding Corp. v. Lincoln lfine Operatlng'Co., 312 U.S. 183. 61 S.Ct. 513 (1941); Davis v. Davis,

hand, and to state courts regarding federal judgments,S on the other hand. As between federal courts sitting in different states an apparently extraconstitutional doctrine of res judicata has been held to apply with the same effect.6

Goodrich 605. See the ~ew York cases supra note 13. Rest. § -Hi; restricts the public policy exception to money judgments. Ct. ;Sussbaum 236. For a blbllogrnphy concerning "American Judgments abroad", see 8 N.Y.C.B.A., Record 302 (1053).

The Full Faith and Credit Clause has "substituted a command for the earlier principle of comity." 'l' Since, however, this command does not extend to all judgments of sister states in every respect, there exists an area in which courts might, and do, desire to grant recognition by comity in the same manner as to extranational judgments (§ 46). That this recognition as such does not violate Udue process," or "equal protection," appears from the Supreme Court's statement that "a state court, in conformity to state policy, may. by comity, give a remedy which the full faith and credit clause does not compel." 8 The only due pro~ess limitation on this exercise of comity~ seems to be "that no other juris305 U.S. 32, 50 S.Ct. 3 (1938): AmeriCJln Surety Co. v. Baldwin. !?S7 U.S. 15B, ;j3 S.Ct. !l8 (1932): KInney v. Kinney, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 346, 100 F.2d
5S1 (1952).

25. Cr. Read, Recognition nnd Enforcement ot Foreign Judgments fl038) 300: Xussbaum, GrundzUge des Internationaien Privutrechts (1952) 219; Kallman. Anerkennung und Vollsneckung ausliindlscher Zlvilurtelle und gerlchtlicher Vergleiche (1946).

Hilton v. Guyot, supra note 10, at 234 (dissent).

See Pound, J., In Johnston v. Compagnie GCnerale Trnnsatlantique, supra note 0, at 123; Goodrich 606.

26. Eder, ,American·Colombian Prll"ate International Law (1056) i3; See nlso e. g. Garland, AmericanBrazilian Privnte International Law (1959) D3; Etcheberry, American-Chilean Private International Law (lD60) S8-00.
27. See in general. ~adelmann. supra note 11, particularly concerning current Canadian legislative efforts (at 1191). BlIt see e. g. for Colombia, Eder, Ope cit. supra note 26. at i3; for Germany. Domke. American-German Pril"ate Law Relations Cases 1045-1955, at 88 (19-.36): for Turkey. Yelmer, Execution ot Foreign Judgments In Turkey (1954) 9.

5. Embry v. Palmer, 10i U.S. 3, 2 S.Ct. 25 (1882): Hancock Nat. Bank V. Farnum. 1i6 U.S. (HO, 20 S. Ct. 506 (1000); lletcalt ,'. Wlltertown, lli3 U.S. Hil, 14 S.Ct. !)'&1 (1894); Stoll v. Gottlieb. 305 U.S. 165, 59 s.Ct. 13-1 (1938). See also 2 Stnt. 298 (1804).
6. BaldWin v. Iowa. Stnte Trn\'ellng lIen's Ass'n. 283 U.S. 522, 51 S.Ct. 511 (1031).


As to the California statute depriving aliens ot their right to Inherit in CflBes ot lack ot reciprocity. see Ehrenzwelg, Conflict ot Laws, 3 Survey ot Calltornla Law (1051) 141. 148. See also Heyman, The Nonresident Allen's Right to Succession under the "Iron Curtaln Rule;" '52 N.W.U.L.Rev. 221 (lOOi): Chaitkin, The Rights ot Residents ot Russia and Its Satellites to Share in Estates ot American Decedents, 25 So.Callf.L.Rev. 291 (1952); Berman, Soviet Heirs in American Courts, 62 ColumL.Rev. 251 (1962); infra. § 248 notes 36-40.

Estln v. Estin. 334 U.S. 541, 68 S.Ct. 1213 (1948). See also Williams v. ~ortb Carollnn, 325 U.S. 226, 65 S.Ct. 1092 (1945) (referring to the "too-Jluld, iU. defined concept ot 'comIty' "). Stone. J .• In lIll\vaukee County v. lIe E. White Co" U.S. 268, a6 S.Ct. 220 (1935) (tax judgment). See also Frankfurter, J., concurring In llay v. Anderson. 345 U.S. 528, 535, i3 S.Ct. 840, S.u (1953): Rutiedge and Frankfurter. JJ., (dissenting on other grounds) In Grifiln v. GrI1Iln, 327 U.S. 220, 236, 241. 248, 250. 66 S.Ct. 556. 564. 569, 5iO (1046); Creager V. Superior Court. 126 Cnl.A.pp. 280, 282. 14 P.2d 552 (1932) ("It such recognition e::s:ceeds the requirements ot the federal Constitution, but is authorized by the laws ot tb1s state. petitioner may not complain"); In re Chase. 195 N.C. 143. 141 S.E. 4TI (1928). cert. den. 218 U.S. 600. 49 S.Ct. 9 (1928); intra § 51 note 3, I 84.


23. Jackson. J., In Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U.S. 5n, 582, i3 S.Ct. 021, D28 (1953). See in general Nadelmann, Reprisals against American Judgments, 65 Harv.L.Rev. 1184 (1952): Lenhoff. Reciprocity: The Legal Aspect ot a Perennial Idea, 49 N.W.U.L.Rev. 619, 621ff. iS1. 16Otf. (1954): Ernst, Gegenseltlgkeit wul Vergeltung lIn I.P.R. (1950).

I. lUlls v. Duryee. 1 Cranch (11 U.S.) 481 (1813), per Story, J. For the earlier \'Iew limiting the e1fect ot sister state judgments· to that ot mere record evidence "prima facie", see e. g. Peck v. Williamson. 10 Fed.Cas~, No. 10,800 (C.C.N.Car.1813): Hitchcock v. Alcken, 1 Calnes 460 (N.Y.l803). See also Smith V. Lewis, 3 Johns. 151 (N.Y.1808), per Kent, Ch. J. (distinguishinsr. however, the "conclusive" eftect tor purposes of defense. supra § 45 note 21): Bnrtlet V. Knlgbt, 1 Mass. 401 (1805) (with concurring opinion denying full taith and credit only bec:nnse of lack ot "actual notice" and Incapaclty, in




! .

diction shall give e1fect, even as a matter of cOmity, to a judgment elsewhere acquired without due process. U 8 In applying thls !imitation, the forum is probably free to extend comity to ,any sister state judgment which is at least based on the equivalent of what, as to extranational judgments, has been referred to as "international competency" .10 How far, on the other hand, re-examination of the judgment court's jurisdictional finding is permissible, will be discussed below (§ 57). In any event, the granting of comity recognition without compulsion creates a serious problem where interstate "courtesy" is exercised at an individual's expense. u It may be in part for this reason that a twilight zone seems to be growing in which comity has been deprived of its voluntary character by intentional or accidental confusion with language of compulsiOn. Thus, state courts have at times combined comity recognition with full faith and credit; 12 and the United States Supreme Court has found it possible to compel full faith and credit to ex parte divorces of sister states, partiCipated in by the other spouse, notwithstanding the lack. in the divorcing court. of jurisdiction over the subject matter. What at the outset were com9. Griffin v. Griffin. 32i U.S. 220. 229. 00 S.Ct. aaG (194(;). See alf;o Id. ot 232; nnd as to n foreign country. Boh'ln '\'. Tah..'ott, supra f 46 Dote 4. Suprn 46 note S; Rest. § 432, comment a i' Good· rich § 2011. But ct. Nussbnum 19i. Thompson '\'. Whitman. ]8 Wnll. (sa U.S.) 45i (lSi3). often clrcd for thil' IU'OI}Osition, is Inconclusl\'e, slnc.'e It merely deni~d compulsion to gi\'e full faith aud credit. Sec also suprn '§ 20 note 9.

mon law doctrines of estoppel and res jutUcam, which each state mayor may not apply as part of its own legal system, have thus been elevated to the constitutional level (§ 74). The forum's interest in non-recognition may be held to outweigh the policy lavoring interstate recogrrltion, as in the case of sister state judgments concerning forum land. U In such cases voluntary recognition is unlikely ever to be granted, except for a growing tendency to avoid re-litigation of the issues by treating the foreign decree as "record evidence of the equities".14 On the other hand, voluntary recognition is frequent in such fields as family relations where unitary interstate trea1ment seems imperative.1S Divorce and support, more fully to be dealt with below (§§ 71 ff., 84), offer particular problems in this context.10
13. Infra § 51 note 26; I 58 notes ltl.
14. lDfra § 58 notc 12.


§ 48



§ 48. Neither public international law
(as to international conflicts eases) nor the

Full Faith and Credit Clause or its implementing statute (as to interstate conflicts ~es) circumscribes the requirements for the recognition of foreign "judgments".l The present chapter is devoted to an analysis of the case law governing these requirements.
Requirements of "adjudication" entitled to recognition may be classified as those concerning (1) the rendering authority (§ § 48 ft.) J (2) finality and continued efficacy (§ 54), (3) procurement (§ 55), (4) substantive propriety (§ 56), and (5) international (interstate) jurisdiction (§§ 57 ff.). (6) Availability of a recognizing court is dealt with in this context (§ 60) .

acts 3 as legislative adjudications in bankruptcy;' and ultimately added to the word "acts" the word "public" in order to exclude from recognition such and similar IS special legislative enactments. 6 In internationa1 relations, the Supreme Court had occasion to declare applicable "international comity" to a foreign legislative composition for the satisfaction of creditors, because "schemes of this character, legalized at home, should be reCOgnized in other countries."" With the disappearance of private acts in these and similar matters, confiicts problems in this field have lost their practical importance.
3. 9 Wigmore, Et'ldence (3d ed. 1940, Supp.) f 25':"2. 4.

15. Comlrr bas also been Invoked for the same reason In disbarring a lawyer hy virtue of bis discipline in R sistcr srnrc. In re Veach. 8fm Mo. 776. 2ti'i S.W.:!,1 .53, 7;10 (1056). See also In re Brown. flU S.D. G2S, 2.,;, N.W. 82-1 (11l3:!). Full fnlth and credit (see In re Van Bet'er. 5;j Ariz. 3OS. 101 P;!!d inll (1940); In re Cla~·. 201 S.W.2d 301 (K~·.1!l:,11; .. In rc Le"erson, 10;) Minn. 42, 201 N.W. 480 n!l3n)) is clenrly Inapplicable, In "iew of different Itnrtil''; nod cnuses of action. See also In rc lIeCul'. 211 Cnl. !:ii, 293 P. 4i (1030,; Anno., 1i3 A.L.ll. ~I~.
As wlll be seen helo,'r (§ 71), the di'rorcc clecree of n sister stnre. to be cntitled to full faith ancl cl·ed· It, must be based on domlcillarr jurisdiction in rem ; aDd uDder the majority rule such jurisdiction is nil«) n requlremcnt of due process. The question mny nrise whether th(> forum, wblle either ho)cJln~ the sif;rer fl;U\te dN'roX? in\'alld or denying It full faith and credit on thl~ gronnd, may rct recognize the cli· "orce "br comlt~·." See In re Andcrson'::; Estntc. 121 Mont. GIG. 194 P.2d 021 (l04S). A Similar proh. lem exists concernin~ Instalments necrued or aceru· Ing under an extrastate alimony decree wblch, beln~ subject to modification, Is not entitled to full faitb and credit. Infra § &.l.

Nadclmann. On the OrJJrln of the BankruptcY ClAUse, 1 Am.J.Leg.Blst. 21li. 221, 2!m (10ti7): Id" Full Faith and Credit to Judgments and Public Acts: A Historical·Analytical !tcappralsal, '5(j MiCh. L.1le\·. 33, G·ifJ'. (105jJ.








See e. g. Foster T. Foster, 8 Ca1.2d 719, OS P.2d 710 (103i) ("bound by the doctrine of comity to gi're rccognltlon to the decree of the South Dakota court entitled to full faith and credit fJl this state").

Current attempts at endowing sister state "public acts" with constitutional fu)] faith and credit presuppose the adoption of a con. stitutional rule of choice of law.! Legislative acts can be meaningfully granted or denied recognition without this presupposition only If they establish rights and duties of individu~ persons and are thus comparable to "judi_ CIal proceedings". Indeed, it may well be that the framers of the Constitution mentioned "acts" in the Full Faith and Credit Clause in order to include such "private"
I'll A judgment mar In this respect be described as a determination by a disinterested body after notice and an Opportunity to be beard." Itest. f 429, com. ment c. See also Infra § 50 note L

On the early history of le~islative dh'orcc see Co g. Westlake. Private Intemntionnl La\\' (5th ed. 1912) 1\9. In EnnLq '\'. Smith, 14 Ho,,', (Ga U.S.) 3m,. 430 (1&'i21. A C!n/iC h)\'oh'In~ thc estate of Gcnernl Kos. clllf;k". the Supreme Court found no dUDcultl' In cllnr:Jcterizin~ an enactment of the Assembly o! tht. Deportment of Grodno in Russin, estnbHsbiut; the dC('('dent's Jl('eJiJrrec. ns Ii "forcliln judllment In' rena • . . c\'icJcncc of the facts adjudicated a~alnst all the world." For enrl,- le~islati\'e dlvorcet: In Connecti<.'Ut, see NadeJmann, supra note 4, at GO )lIch.L.Ue\·. 50, n. 10i.

See nlso Bissell '\'. Briggs, fI Mass. 461 (1S13,. reler. rillJ: to an apparently unreportcel CSU\(! "'hlc]1 III' ,·"h·ed a New Hampshire court's duty to ~i'\'e ful! faith and credit to a MnssacllUsetts ndmlnistrator'~ leglslnth'e license for sellln~ land; nlso j] 1I0t<· 1; f Si note 1. For legitimation by legislatiVe! aeL sec infra § 141 note 5.



See 1 Crosskey. Politics and the Constitut!OJ, (1053) 544. On wbether the clause was intende6 to he sel1·c..~ecuting, see Nadclmann, supra note 4. at 50 )ljch.L.Rey, 71ft, S.Ct. 363 (1883, concerning the Canada Souther: Arrangement Act, 1878, 41 Vict., c. 2i. See infrll 60 note J8.

'1. Canada Southern Ry. '\'. Gebhnrd, 100 U.S. U2';, ~.

See supra § 9 notes 5f!'.




§ 48





Foreign Countries Administrative acts of foreign governments have traditionally been denied recognition for purposes of either enforcement or defense, presumably on the ground that the forum has no interest in furthering the foreign sovereign's governmental purposes.s In relation to specific problems in this field, however, this attitude has been considerably weakened in recent times, if for no other reason than that the forum state may have a considerable interest in securing reciprocal favorable treatment of its own acts. Foreign tax assessments and expropriations are cases in point. Tax assessments. "No country ever takes notice of the revenue laws of another." 9 This dictum lO of Lord Mansfield was, like other earlier 11 and later 1~ dicta and holdings to the same effect, concerned with the impact of foreign revenue laws on international commerce. But almost 150 years later it became the basis of an American practice denying foreign tax authorities the right to collect taxes assessed by them.13 Except for treaty
8. 9.

provisiOns to the contrai}-, ,0& this practice must still be considered· the law,us although much doubt has been expressed whether the reasons traditionally advanced for it, were ever, and, if so, are still, valid.1S Expropriations and confiscations. All over the world, political and social upheavals preceding, and caused by, the two world wars have created legal problems connected with confiscations (expropriations without adequate compensation) or other expropriations of private property by foreign govemments.1T
oC Indln v. Tnylor. [10051 A.C. 491. conapare Cheshire 13611'. milll. Dicey's Gondict ot Laws (7th ed. 1058) 16H., i:;;;.

VirtUally all1tajor countries have at times, on the one hand, indulged in exercising their powers in this ~espect, and, on the other hand, refused to recognize the legality of such exercise by foreign governments.18 At least three policies have, on various occasions, been invoked to justify or to refute expressions of these two conflicting tendencies. "The courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another done within its own territory." 19
dltional continental liternture. see Lewnhl. Dns Intel'1II1tionale EnteignUllJ.,rsrecht im Licht neuell ~chrirttllms, 21 Uabels Z. 110 (10;.6): Schnmnulln. Ansliindische Konllskationen. De\'isenkolltrolle unll Public Pollcy. 10 Schw.Jb.lnt.R. 131 (l!);;3l. Sloe also infra § 238 note 10. Concerning the recognition of executh'e effects of forei~n currency luws. see :Ueyer. Recognition of Exchange Controls after the Internntiollul llonetnry Fund Agreement. 62 Yale L.J. :-.;tjj (l!l;h11: Hjerner, I!'riimmnnc.le '·alntuhll: I)ch IPR 110an (with l!:ngUsb :mmmary :lllll extensi\'e hibliogmpby) ; ~eidl·HoheD\·eldern. l'rohleme tier .\ner· kennung nuslilnc.liscber De,·il'lenbewirtschuftungs. 1Il11:o:;nuhmen, S Osterr. Z. OITentl.Recht S'l (lrnii); Huxter, Foreilm Currency ObllgntiolUl. a:o Cnn.B. Re\"'. 697" (lOOi); l[eichsner, The Internationnl lIonetary Fund and tbe Rerolmitlon or ForelJCtl Exchange Restrictions, 1 Jug.Rev.lled.Pr. 1. 1i2 l1w.m : Gold. 10 Rabels Z. 601 (l1Y.J4). :!2 ide 601 (195i) ; Paris University. Le Contr61e des Changes (undated); Rasbba. }t'orelgn Exchange Restrictious and Public Polley In the Conflict of Law:5•. 41 lUch. L.Rev. i77 (1043); Oliver. Impe,lIment.c; of American Investment In France. :! .\m.J.Comp.L. 4i4 IUY~); lIlUpra § 6 note 15; infra § 183 note 11; § 184 notes 6-13_

This prinCiple of "Act of State," presumably one of international public rather than constitutionallaw,20 has been applied in the United States even where public policy seemed to require a decision to the contrary,!1 and even as to governments not recognized de jure or de facto. H In exercising discretion in thisrespect courts will defer to detenninations of the executive or legislative branch of the gov- _ ernment.!3
supm note 17. at 6; ~chwarz. Die Anerkennung ausliimlischer ~tnatsllkte (1935).

But see Comment, ;)7 Yale L.J. 108, 111 (1047).

ot the United States

Cf. Ehrenzweig nnd Koch, Income Tax Treaties (1050) 230: Sack. (~on-) En· fOl'cement of Foreign Re\'enue Laws in Internntionul Law nnd Practice, 81 U. ot Pn.L.Rev. avO (1033). In re Bliss' Trust. ~6 )lLc;e2d 069. !!OS ~.Y.S.2d i25 (1000) (Englanc.l). Ct. Rest. (Supp.1048) § -H3 (cavent). See Lettar. Extra-state Enforcement of Penal and GO\'ernmentnl Claims, -16 Hurv.L.Rev. 1D3 (1U:i2) : Comments. 50 Col.L.Rev-. -!OO (1050): 71 S.A.L.J. 275 (1954): 47 lllch.L.Rev. 700 (1949); 20 CoLL.Rev. 782 (lD29) : 3 Int.Comp.L.Q. 465 (1954): -I- ide at 5tH (1055). Re, Foreign Conllscatlons (1951); .!.driannse. ConHsclltion in Privute International Law (1056); lnternationales Konl1skaSeidl.lIoheD\·eldern, tions-ulld Enteignungsrecbt (1952); Kegel. Probleme des internadonalen Enteignungs-und Wiih· rungsrechts (19-:>m; Troller. Internationale Zwangs. "erwertnng und Expropriation \'on Immaterialgtltern (l05G): Domke. American Protection against I!'oreign Expropriation in the Light ot the Suez Canol Crisis. 10-:; U.Pa.L.Re\". 1033 (1051); id., On the Extraterritorial Effect of Foreign Expropria· tion Decrees. 4- West.PoI.Q. 12 (1951): id.. i N.J.W. 827 (1054); Re. The XatlonaUzatlon ot ForeignOwne(l Property. 36 lUnn.L.Rev. 323 (1~2); Id., Natlonal11.atlon and the Inv~tment of Capitol Abroad, 42 Geo.L.J. 44 (1053): Id.• Judicial Developments In SO\'erelgn Immunity !lnd Foreign Con!lscations, 1 N.Y.Law Forum 160 (1955); Seldl·Hohenveldern.1 Am.J.Comp.L. 122 (1952); 1 Oest.J.Z_ 34!! (1052); 2 Internadonales Recht und Dlplomatie 321 (1957) (on communist practice); Wortley. Observatlons on tbaa Publlc nod Private international La\v Relating to Expropriation, 5 Am.J.Comp.L. 571 (1956); De Nova. ;)2 Friedenswarte 116 (1954); Olmstead. Nationalization of Foreign Property Interests, etc.. 32 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 1122 (1051); Comment. 5 .Am. J.Comp.L. MI (1051); Cassonl, I.e leggl nazionallz· zatrici dell' Europa Orientale e Ia sorte delle socletA nnzionallzzate, 55 Rfv.Dlr.Comm. 343 (1951). For ad-

21. Bernstein ". V'nn HeYJ:hen l-'reres Soc. An" 163 b'.:!d 246, 25.1 (:!d Cir.10·m, cerc.liell. 3.~ U.S. ii2. tiS :i.Ct. SS Il!J4i) : Kle\'e ,'. Illlslcr LebensVersil·hernnl:s'lie~nN<:hllrt. 182 llli<l'. iiR. 45 N.Y.S. 2d ~'I"l (11H:~): llCCarthy \'. Reich..bullk, 2aO App. Dh·. 1U16. 20 X. ~.S.!!c.I 4;;0 (lU-IOI. :llI'd mew. 284 N.Y. i:m. :n X.E.:!d ii08 (1040): Wer(pl \'. ZivnostenskD. Bankn, :!UO APII.DI\·• •4•• :!:~ X.Y.S.:!d 1001 (l!l41Jl. re,"d on other grollll(u; :!So ~.Y. 01. 38 ~_ E.2d :182 (IOn); infra. notes 2-1-, :!S.


Supra note 21.

Cf. Sallmoff


Standard Oil.

:''b":! X. Y. :!:!tI, :!!!8. 186 ~.E. Oill. U83 (1033); fJ WilIl:5tOIl, COlltrncts (rev. ec.l. 1038) ::H3O, n. 14;.


Rest. § 610. Holmnn et at Y. Johnson. nltas Newland. 1 Cowp. 341. Il8 Eng.Rep. 1120 (KB.1 TI5). 10 The rose dill not involve taxes but noti·smnJ:gllng ia\vs. )(oreover, all the case held was that French law. nppllcnble to a sale ot teo by a Frenchman in France, \vould not invalidate this sale by ,·ll·tue ot a \'lolation ot nn EnglISh prohibition. II. See Boucher v. Lawson. cns.t.Himl. SU, 05 Eng. Rep. 53 (liM) ,defense invoking Portuguese export prohibition law).

Borchard, The (;nrecognlzed Government In American Courts. :!6 Am.J .Int.L. 261. :!6S (1032): LadorLederer. Recognition-A Historical :itocktaking, 2T Xonl.TidRSkr.lnt.R. fl.l (1057); .renDlngs. Note. 26Cnllt.L.Rev. 11i (1037): Comment. 46 Geo.L.J. 322 (lU5.-1U58).

On the related problem ot the recDlmition ot extranational escheat, see infra. § 112 notes 3-fj, 18. For New York declslons concerning Uerman currency and racial lnws. see Domke. American· Uerman Private Relations Cases 1045-19'"oJii (1056) alIT.; in general Adriaanse. op. cit. supra note Ii, nt 13tf.; Rashbll. Foreign Exchnoge Restrictions nnd Publlc Polley in the Contllct of Laws, U llich.L.Rev. 71i. 1089 (1943). ·19. t:nderhlll v. Hernandez. 168 U.S. 250. 252, 18 S. Ct. 84 (181r.) (Venezuellan general sued In New York for anlnwful arrest): cited \vith appro\"'ol Oetjen v. Central Leather Co.• 2-16 U.S. 291. 303, 38 S.Ct. 309. 311 (1017). See'n!so Rose v. Himely, 4 Crnnch (8 U.S.) 241 (1808); Banco de EspnJ1a v. Federal Reserve Bank. 114 F.2d 438 (2d Clr. 1940) (Spanish SUver seizure): Frnzier v. Foreign Bondholders Prot. Conncll, 283 App.Dlv. 44, 123 N.Y.S.2d 000 (1953). ThJs argument may be trnced to. Bartolus, Tractatus Bepraessallum (135-1) Quaestio I. 3, 110. See Se1d1·Hohenveldern, OPe cit

12. Plane v. Fletcher. 1 Dongl. 251. 00 Eng.Rep. 1M (1779): Sharp v. Taylor. :! Phi. SOl • .u Eng.Rep. lllJ3 (1849); James v. Catherwood. 3 DowL nnd Ry. 100 1l~3). 13. llarrlllnd v. Turner. is lIisc. 9. 132 N.Y.S. 173 (1011)' Colorado v. Harbeck, 2:J2 ~. Y. 71. 133 N.E. 357 (1021): In re Bliss, 121 lUsc. i73, 202 ~.Y.S. ISO (1023) (all sister state cllses). Earlier AmerIcan decisions were. Uke the English ones, lImited to tho Invalldlltlon ot defenses based on foreign revenue laws. See Lll(UOW v_ Van Rnnselaer, 1 Johns. (3 ~.Y.) 04 (1808): but also a dictum in Henry v. Sargeant. 13 N.H. 321. 40 Am. Dec. 146 (1843). As to present Engilsh la.w in the llght of Government


23. Hernstein Y. N. Y. ~ederlandsche-Amerikaansche Stoomvaart·lIaatschnpplj. 210 F.:!d 3i5 (2d Cir. 1D341. Cf. eo nom. 173 l!'.2d 71 (2d Cir.l049). based upon a letter from the LegnJ Advllrer of the Depnrtment of State ot April 2i. 10-40. 20 Dept.St. Bull 502 (1049), l'eUeving "American courts from noy restraint upon tbe exercise ot their juris. c.liction to pass upon the \'alidity ot the acts of Nazi officials. .!.galnst this surrender of judicIal power. see Jessup, Has the Supreme Court Ab. dicated One of its Functions. 40 AJD.J.lnt.L. 168 (10-46). See also Borchard. Extrn-terrltorlol Con. liscations. 36 Am.J.lnt.L. 275 (1942). Concerning Foreign Office Certiftcntes. see Luigi lIonta. of Geno"n v. Cechotrncht, Ltd.. [10061 2 Q.B. 552; Xote. 6 Int. and Comp.L.Q. 165 (195i). N.Y.C.B.A., Comm_ on Intern.Law. A Reconsideration or the Act of State Doctl'ine 10 United States Courts (1959) suggests that the Government promote free.. judicial Inquiry by a general statement ot polley. See also supra §I 18, 31. On the status ot Cuban expropriations, compare e. g. Pons v. RepublIc of Cuba. 294 F.2d 925 (D.C.Cir.l961). willi. Compania Ron Bacarell. S. A. v. Bank ot Nova Scotia. 193. F. SUP2t. 814 (S.D.N.Y.I961). See also intra I 191· note 17; I 238 note 10 (tor additional references).




On the other hand, each country wiD at- foreign expropriation constitutes a "confiscatempt to safeguard the property of its citi- tion" without adequate compensation.tG zens and residents. Foreign acts impairing Finally, both arguments will usually yield such property may be held to violate domestic to a third principle: While every country is "public policy," which is not to be made sub- free to deal under its own law with any propservient to the governmental purposes of any erty located within its borders,t, its confiscaother country." This argument is more liketions or even compensated expropriations of ly to be resorted to if the foreign governproperty located in the forum state, will hardment's purposes are opposed to those of the ly ever be given effect extraterritorially.IS forum's government,tG and also where the Needless to say, the problems inherent in • detennining the location of intangibles 19 will, 24. Amerlean courts bnve been reluctant to Invoke this principle aJ!aln.c;t the recognition of anti-racial in many cases,· enable the forum to reach measures in fa\'or of aUens. In addition to the virtually any result of its choosing. 30 In ca~ supra note 18. see Holzer v. Deutsche ltelchsbahn-Gesellschaft. 277 N,1:. 474. 14 N.E.2d making this choice, courts will try to avoid iUS (19Ht:;); Hinch ,'. Basler Leben~-Versicberungs­ situations in which a debtor could be made to Oesellschnft. 73 N.Y.S.2d 523 (Sup.1947). See also Domke. American-German Private International pay twice by the expropriation of the claim lAl,,' (1006) U1 ff.; Mann, Sacrosanctity of tbe ,against him. 31 Foreign Act of State. un L.Q.Rc\'. 42. 100 (1943,; , Indeed, failure to avoid this predicament Comment, %ji 'rale L.J. lOS (ltHi); Dickinson, TOe lAlw of Nations as Part of tlle National La,,' ot might constitute a violation of due process. the United States. 101 V.Pa.L-Ue'\'. 2G. 792 (1952This conclusion could be supported by a (;3); hI.. The Law of Nations as National La\'\',
104 U.Pn.L.lte". 4iJl (1900) ; Mlehaell, Ett Prlnclplellt trskt aTlWrande om "ordrc public" oeh dess anvlindnlnl: pn de nationalsoclallstiskn exproprlatlom;laJ:nrnn.23 Nord.Tidsskr.lnt.lt. 9 Cl058) : Llpsteln, (l9:iO) Camh.L.J.~ 13~; Morgenstern. 4 Int.L.Q. 326 (l9:il). llut ~ec JJnvld Y. "cltl\cher Magn~lt\\'erke Actlen Geflell~hn ft, 348 I'n, 3.1:i. au A.2d 346 (1944); Plescli T. Hnllque Nntionule de In Ilepubllque d' Haiti, 273 App.Dh·. 22-1. ;; N.Y.S.2d 4:1 n!l4S). nff'd ~OS KY. 5ia, 81 KE. 2d lOG (19-1~); f'nlyok '\'. Pcn1.illtl!1.eti K01.Jlont lludapcst, 2i!J AI1li.Uh·. u:!8. III ~.Y.8.:!t1 ,;i (l!I::;:!I. afl"d nnd JIIodllied on other lITotlllc1~ 3tH ~.r. iO-I. 10, Kf:.2cl 001 (lro~). ~lH KY, ;-I~. lOS KE.:ld 407 (19~:!); infm Dote !!~.
25. Compare In this respect Nctherlands



§ 48




....'" ~!

. I&:

-=: ..

"7 :j:.

J~ . ..







J t

op.dt. supm note 17, at 101; Lourie anel Meyer. Go\'cmmeuts-in-Exlle and the Effect of their E~­ proprlatorr Decrees. II U.ChLL.Re\·. 211 (19-!3). See also infra ~ itO notes 1111. 26. Adrlunnsc. Oll.clt. supra note Ii. at iSff.; Seidl· lIohern'cldern, oJl.clt. Sl1pra note Ii. at 4iff.. citing Cammell '\'. Sewell, 5 B &: N ~ lr.. EII(:.Itcll. )an (Exeh.ll:16Ol. which limits nOIl-ret:ogllltlolJ til "barbarous" act~ of forelJ:1I govcrnment agcncies. 27. OctJcn T. Central J..eothcr Co•• 240 U.S. 20•• as S.Ct. 309 ()111~I; lUcnud \'. American Metal Co•• :!-W U.S. 30-1. :~ S.CL 312 (lOIS); Seidl-Hoben\'cltlerll, 0i', cit. z>l1JlrU Dote Ii, at Off.
2B. See CoJ:. United States T. Pink, 31G U.S. 203, G'.! S.Ct. w:! (19-l:!1.

. :-



dictum in Cities Service Co. v. McGrath.D ican courts seem to have little hesitation in In that case the Supreme Court upheld the treating such expropriations as ineffective as jurisdiction of the United States to vest nego- to such property. The prior owners will be tiable bearer bonds of American obligors, held to retain their equitable rights in the owned by an enemy alien and located outside American assets.3' While unequiVocal and the United States. This holding ~as in part clearly desirable, this practice cannot avoid based on the ground that in this case the serious difficulties. There will ordinarily reobligors would be protected against double sult a splitting of legal entjties (corporations liability. For, if a foreign country should with two sets of directors and stockholders' also proceed against them upon another juris- meetings) and different treatment of corpar· dictional basis, the obligors would be able "to ate rights and debentures which are usually recoup from the United States for a 'taking' considered subject to the debtor's law.35 of their property." This dictum has found Other administrative acts. Whether forstrong support in the holding of the Supreme eign governmental certificates are conclusive Court in an escheat case (§ 49) "that when proof or are-even admissible as evidence will a state court's jurisdiction purports to be vary from country to country and case to based . . . on the presence of property case.38 A more uniform practice based on within the State, the holder of such property comity might be desirable but might have to is deprived of due process of law if he is comawait uniform or federal legislation. Where pelled to relinquish it without assurance that an extranational marriage, under the law of he will not be held liable again in another the place of celebration, requires for its jurisdiction or ina suit brought by a claimvalidity an administrative act, recognition ant who is not bound by the first judgcould be related to that act. Although this ment." 3Ja approach would eliminate many problems. 3': Important problems have arisen in connec- recognition of foreign marriages is tradi- ~ tion with the "nationalization" of shares of tionally treated as a matter of choice of foreign corporations or partnerships owning law.38 property in the United States. In contrast to Z. 491 (lOSI); RG 10i, 44 (Germnn Supreme Court): the uncertainty prevailing abroad, 33 Amer32. Cities Service Co. T. McGrath, 342 U.S. 330, 334, 335. 72 S.Ct. 334, 330, 33i (1952). See also Welael T. Weitzel, 2. ArIz. lli. 230 P. 1100 (1924) (denial of garnishment of waites because of pos. sible non-recognition by Mexil"8Jl court); Seidl· Bobenveldern, op.cit. supra note I., at 149.
Cln~. Recent De\,elopments In the ProtectlollOC American Shareholders' Inter~t." in ForeiJrn Cotporations, 45 G(o().L.J. 1. Iii (lD5G): SaTatler, l Trn\'aux (1034) 132; Domke. On the Nationallzntion of Foreign Shareholders' Interestt: Abroad. 4 N.l".L. For. 4G (195S); Folghel, Nationalization (Stot',kholm 1958). 34. Zwack '\'. Kraus Bros. &: Co., 23. F.2cl :m:i. 2:19 (2d Cir.l006). Cf, Stephen T. Zh'uostenska Bank:... 140 N.Y.S.2d 323 CN.Y.Co.l00:;). aff'd without op. 286 App.Dh·. 999, 145 N.'l:.S.2d 310 (1955).


eral RCfWf\'e Bank. 201 F.2d 4u;. (2d Clr.l~il (Netherlllnd~l; Anderson '\'. N. Y. TmmmlulillC HandelsmnntjoCchnl)IIij. 2811 K1:, 9. 43 KE.2d fill:! (lU42) (Dutch gO\'ernmcut In e.~lJe); 1!litll CaJlltul Records \'. Mercury Itecords Corp.. IOU P.tiUJlII. 330 (S.D.N.Y.l952), aff'd 221 F.2d 0:;7 (2d Cir.19~) (Cz.ecboslovllkla) ; Estonian State Cnrgo &. Passenger S. S. Line T. U. S., 11(; F.Rupp. 447 (Ct. CI.1D53), 139 F.Supp. 702 (Ct.C1.l956) (Estonia); BoUack T. Socl~tl! G~nerale pour Favorlser Ie D~ve)oppement, etc.. 203 App.Dh·. 001. 33 N.Y.S.2d 986 (19421 (Vichy lt~rnnce). For use of a eholce , of law rule to aehle\'e the same result, see Dix v. Bank of california Not. Ass'n. 113 ~·,Supp. S23 (N.D.Ca1.1952), aII'd 20r; F.2d 957 (9th Cir.19i:i3). ()ompare Naam)oze Venllootsehap Suikerfnbrlek "Wond-Asell" T. Chase Nat. Bank of Citr of Xe\\' York, 111 F.Supp. 83.1 (S.D.X.Y.1~a). In general see e.g. Note, Protective Exproprlatory Decrees of the Governments ill Exllc, 41 Cal.L.Re\·. 1072 (1941): ~ote, 58 'rale L.J. 321 (194l:t): Adrioanse,

See n)!'o Stephen 'r. Zlrno!i:tcnska Banko. Nat. Corp.• sUllra § 3) note ~l. But Sf!(! supra notes 19-21. 29. SUI)ra § :.'(1 note!" 4S11:. As to the location of ships, see Adrloanse, o)l.cIL supra note Ii, at 49fT. In determlnlnlt tIle situs. the debtor's residence, the location of hit: propertr and the residence of the creditor b8'\'e been used from time to time and plnce to place: See Seldl-Bobenveldern, op.clt. supra note Ii. at 88ft.; Adrlaanse, op.elt. suprA note Ii. at 44ft Particular difficulties have ariscn In connection with the dissolution of corporations. See Adriannt:e, supra, at 115; and particularly Kegel 616-623. See also Seldl-Hohenveldern. 1 Am. J.Comp.L. 122 (1952) (Austrian decision denying effect, as to forulll 81lSets. to nationalization of Czechoslovak partnership). As to traciamarks, see Seidl· Hohenveldem. l19:'l8) Gel". ReebtSschutz und Urbeberrecht 112; suprn f 26 note 00. 31. See supra 1120 note 9,21, infra § 49 note 16.



32a. Western Union Tel. Co. 'r. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 3GS U.S. 71. 75, S2 S.OL 190, 201 (1001). See ~ Infra § 49 note 16. 33. For the German controversy compere e.g. B. Lewald, 74 J,Bl 238 (19:)2); Lleberknecbt, 9 N.J. W. 931 (1956); Serlck, 11 J.Z. 198 (1956); w. Lewald, 21 Babels Z. 133 (1956) (recognition of expropriation as not directly affecting forum property) i toUh Beltzke, 11 J.Z. Gi3 (1956); SeidlHohenTeldern, 45 Rev.Crlt.Dr.lnt.Pr. 265 (1950): Id., 6 Ost.J.z. 845 (1951); Jd., 6 Jb.lnt.R. 263 (1956) (supporting American approach,. The laUel' 01)' proach may also be found In Belgium [\'nn Hecke, 4 Int.L.Q. 354 (1951) i Adriaan5e. Confiscatloll In P.IL. (1956) 125] i SwJtzerland (BGE U3 III 53) i Sweden [Mann, 21 Babels Z. 14 (1056)); Austria (OGB SZ XXIV, No. 255). See also Note, 10 Babels

35. For the fast growing foreJgn case law and lItcrature on this problem. see Kegel 626-62i. Con('('rr.· Ing the communist '\'iE'-W of the subject \vith regard to the (differing) So"let and Hungarian techniQu~s of nationalIZation, see B~l 219-229. 36. See e.g. Fidells Fisheries T. Thorden. 142 F. Supp. 798 (s.D.N.'Y.1956) (Russian certificate tlr weight and condition), and 1n general, McOormlel;., Handbook of the Law of E\'ldence (1954) 614tL 87. See e.g. Raape 236ff. See also infra § 49 note 2c § 51 note 27. 3B. Mueller, International Choice of Law to Deter· mine the Validity of Marriages, 2 Bow.L.Be,·. 2l










§ 49



(2) Sister States 49. That administrative acts may be en!d to full faith and credit under either the ding of "judicial proceedings," or "reci," is now no longer in doubt. 1 The rea.; impelling American courts to give inlSing recognition to governmental claims oreign governments 2 are, of course, presto an infinitely greater degree in intere conflicts. As to each specific problem ill be seen that courts have been inclined ~ive full play to constitutional full faith credit, in nearly wholesale abandonment ~arlier restrictions. While this is par· larty true in the field of tax assessments sister state escheats, to be dealt with ;ently, conflicting social interests may ex· n a retrograde development in the field of 'kmen's compensation. Since problems as :he latter have remained limited to the
International Aspects of tbe United States, 40 Ill.L.Rev. h'oreign ~[arrlnges nnd the ... dict of Laws, 21 lnch.L.Rev. 743 (11)'>-3)' Holt. I~ 1.H1ltlgkeit der Ehe 1m KOlllslonsrecht der 'relni~ten Staaten von Amerlka, !!1 Rabels Z. 110.'')6). , See e.g. Nevarez v. Bailon, ~ S.W.2d l (Tex.Civ.App.l056): In re Bir's Estate 83 11.~\pp.:!d !!56. 188 1).2d 409 (1948): CamPio~e \'. Implone. 201 lIisc. 500. 101 :-t. Y.S.2d 17'0 (If)!')1)' '1IIleation of Sood, 208 llisc. 810, 142 N.Y.S.2d ~ (Onad Co. 1(55), atf'd 100 N.Y.S.2d 518 (10G6) '.nlh!!': TacznnowskL v. TaczfUlOwsld, [19561 3 All I •. 4<>1 (POlish nationals married In Itllly accord: [0 Oathollc rites under EnglIsb law); Da Costa. ,. Formlllities of llarriage in tbe Confilct of \\'S. 1 Int.Comp.L.Q. 211 (1958);, Lipstein. [1057] t111~L.J. 126. See nlso On v. Brownell. 253 F.2d I (uth Clr.1058): Infra § 138 note 1. .'C supra § 011 notes Iff.; lfagnolla Petrolenm v. Hunt, 320 U.S. 430, 64 S.Ot 208 (1943)' "1, Administrative DetennLnatlon and Full o(h and Credit. !!2 Iowa L.Rev. 461 (1937)' ·atham. Ues .TlldLcnta and the Full Faith and ,'~.Ilt Clause, 44 Col.L.Rev. 330, 333, (1944); Rest. •• 'D. comment b: ~ote, :w CaILf.L.Rev. 141 Ill. But see e. g. Horowitz v. Kempner 8 Misc "62. 168 N. Y.S.2d 311 (1951), denying ~ judi: :1 etfect to Social Security Administration rulf'Oncernfng validity ot Nevada marriage. '~ judLcata In admLnistrative law, see DavLs, Ad:~~tratlve Law (1951) 563ft'.; Parker, Admints\\"e Law (1052) 245tr.: Scboptlocher, The Doc:: of Res Judicata In Administrative Law, '-1 WIs.L.Rev. 1, 108; Comment, 49 Yale L.J 1,1040). •

recognition· of' defenses, these claims will be treated in that context (§ 63). Tax assessments. There is nttle reason today for treating differently tax assessments matured into court judgments, and those "merely" imposed by the administrative authority, provided this imposition is final. Nevertheless, such different treatment may still be called for by the Supreme Court decision in Milwaukee County v. M. R. White CO.,3 which requires full faith and credit to tax judgments, while considering as "an open question" the enforceability of mere tax assessments of sister states. But the gap seems to be closing. While the Contlicts Restatement of 1934 denied tlatly the actionability of foreign "claims for taxes"," the 1948 amendment limited itself to a caveat and the statement that the contrary view "would seem more desirable." In at least four states this contrary view has judicially been adopted,1S in refutation of the astonishing finding of a Delaware' "CoUrt that "Michigan's sovereignty is as foreign to Delaware as Russia's.8 About half the states have
208, 275, 56 S.Ct. :!:ro. 4.

enacted statutes granting enforcement on the basis of reciprocity. T Like other individual state actions, tax ~ents are thus likely to assume the character of "quasi-judgments." 8 But some difficulty may be expected from cli1ferences existing in the machinery for enforcement,S and the present permissibility of concurring taxation by the several states of the Union.10 Escheat. Jurisdiction under escheat statutes has presented many problems where, as is usually the case, it is made to depend upon the location of the decedent's "estate." Here, as elsewhere, the situs of intangibles is a matter for varying legal construction. \1 As
7. See e.g. Oklahoma v. Xeely, Sllpra note 5; California Re'oenue and Taxation Code §§ 3Of. 8. See :;:.upra I tl. nt note 13, I~ncerning ~tockhold­ ers' IinbUity nssessments such ns [hose Invoh'ed in Broderick v. Rosner. ~ U.S. 62D, 5;; S.Ct. 589 (1035). cited wltb npprovnl In the )Uhvaukee cnse, supra note :J, at :.>73: or Superintendent of Banks \'. lIoors. 2M llnss. 518, 2 Y.E.2d 553 (10:i6) ("contrnctunl" rntionnle). ~ee also Jackson, Full Fnith and Credlt-Tbe Lawyer's Clau!Oe of the Constitution, 45 CoLL.Rev. I, 15 (1D45), favor'ing tbe treatment of tnX assessments as judgments. Little can be gained by justifying enforcement by an annlogy to dnlms based on "quasi-contract." Comment. n 111cb.L.Rev. ,06 (1940).

IT. ~10:.6): Klllljarvl, ~rrU\ge Lllws of the I (1046): Goodrich.

llU\vlluk_ee County v. ll. E. Wbite Co.. 296 U.S. ~ (1935). See also lIoore v. lUtchell, 281 U.S. 18, 2-1, 00 S.Ct. 1i5, 176 (1030).

in the field of competing tax jurisdictions,is this uncertainty is reflected in the treatment of the question when sister state escheats are entitled to full faith and credit. Standard Oil Co. v. New Jersey 13 concerned New Jersey's jurisdiction to escheat certain corporate shares by virtue of the corporation's domestic 'domicile. The Court conceded that other states could have assumed concurrent jurisdiction on other grounds.1" But it upheld New Jersey's claim because Full Faith and Credit barred any "double escheat." 15 In Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,18 however, the Court has retreated from this position and declared the Standard Oil Co. doctrine inapplicable where "there is in reality a controversy between States, possibly many of them, over the right to escheat." In such cases, which in view of quickly spreading escheat legislation threaten to become the rule, it would be impossible, the Court rflasoned, for any state to preclude double escheat by bringing other states into the case, so that only the Supreme Court itself can resolve the controversy by exercising its original jurisdiction in suits between states. 1T
See also supra § 26 note 48: § 48 notes 2tlff. 12. See supra. I 2D note 10: Infra i i2 note 6. 13. Standnrd Oil Co. v. Xew Jersey, 341 U.S. 428, n S.Ct. S22 (1051). 14. See Connecticut lIutua.1 LiCe Ins. Co. v. lIoore, 333 U.S. 541, 68 S.Ct. 682 (1048); Es[ate of~olnn, 135 CaU.pp.2d 16, 286 P.!!d 809 (1955); Coleman, Corporate Dividends and the Condict of Laws, 63 Harv.L.Rev. 433, 460 (1050); ~ote, 65 Harv. L.Rev. 1408 (IDeS:!).

Rest. § 610, comment c. This propoSition was apparently primarily based on earlier decisions ot :-t~ York cour~ [e.g. Colorado v. Harbeck, 232 N. Y. 11: 133 N.~. 361 (1921)J, and OD Judge Learned Hand s argument In l[oore v. lIitchell 'JO F <>d 600 (2d Olr.1D29). ntr'd on other gronnd; ';81 18, 50 S.Ot. 115 (1030). See nlso In re Asslgn~ent FUm C~assLCS to Knufmnn, 152 N.Y.S.2d 565 (N. Y.Oo.l956) : lILnnesota v. Karp, 54 N.E.2d 7'6 (ObLo App.l048). Bot see F. A. HoLsbauser Co v Gold Hill Copper Co. 138 Y.O 1i8 50- S E :'!t~ (1905). " " • UdV



Califomia v. St. Louis Union Trust Co•• 260 S.W. 2d 821 f,llo.APP.l053), eert.dbnn. 348 U.S. !l32. i;) S.Ct. 354 (1055). See in general Letlnr. Extrastnte l!:nforcement of Penni and Governmental Claims, 46 Harv.L.Rev. 103 (1D32); Hazelwood, Enforcement of Tax Judgments, 1tl )Iarq.L.Rev. 10 (1034): Daum. Interstate Comity and Govemmental Claims. 33 Ill.L.Rev. 249 (1038); Freeze. ExtraterritoriaL Enforcement of Revenue LawS, :!3 Wasb.U.L.Q. 321 (1938); Note, [1055] Wnsb.U.L.Rev. 310 (1055). On actions for taxes Includlng statutory penaities, see Comment, 25 U.CbLL.Rev. 187, 101 (l05i).


Oklaboma v. Neely, 150 Ark. 230, 282 S.W.!!d 150 (1955); Oklaboma Tax COmmission \'. Rodgers. 238 lIo.App. 1115, 193 S. W.2d 019 11946)' Obl0 e:.: reJ. Dnffy. Atty. Gen. v. Arnett. 314 Ky 234 S. W.2d 722 (1050); City ot Detroit v Gould. 12 111.2d 201, 146 N-1il2d 61 (1957). S~ also New York v. ShapLro, 129 F.Supp. 149 (D.O.lIass.l954)· State of Ohio v. KleLtcb Bros., tne. 351 l'Iich. 504' 98 N.W.2d 636 (1959); Notes. 69 Harv.L.Rev (19155): 50 Mlcb.L.Rev. 334 (1951). •




supra I 48 notes 8tl.

Detroit v. Proctor, 5 Terry 193 61 A.2d 412 (D I 1948). See also Wayne County v.' Am. Steel E:Epoe • 271 App.Div. 585, -101 N.Y.S.2d 526 (19C50). rt,

Gooddcb O1tr. But many states bave no\v o~ - 15. Standard on Co. v. Xew Jersey, 341 U.S. 428, viated these difficulties by reciprocal enforcement 443, 71 S.Ot. 822, 831 (1051). See generally Comof tu claims statutes. See e.g. Roesken, Out-ofment. 50 lILcb.L.Rev. 'i56 (1061). State Collection, :IT Tnxes 955 (1048); supra note 1. 16. Western Union Tel Co. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 368 U.S. n, 82 S.Cr. 109 (1061), II. See In re Lyons' Estate. 175 Wash. 115, 26 Black, J. See nlso supra § 20 note :2111, § 48 note P.2d 615 (1933) ; In re Rapoport's Estate, 311 32a. . lllcb. 201. 26 N.W.2d i71 (1947). cert.den. 332 U.S. 17. Tbe Court found the sLtuation "fn all materIal ilH, 6S S.Ot. 71 (1947): Note, 53 lIicb.L.Rev. 612 respects like thnt" involved in Texas v. Florida, (1055); Anno., 50 .A..L.R.2d 13i5. See also State supra. I 29 note 10. Western Union Tel Co. v. v. American Sugar'" Retlning Co., 20 N.J. 286. Commonwealth of Pennsylvnnla, supra note 16, at 119 A..2d 761' (1956): State v. Union Bag-Camp 368 U.S. 71, 82 S.Ct. 202. Paper Corp., 35 N.J. 300. 173A.2d 290 (1061). For an early case, see Camp v. LockWood, 1 Dall 393 In cases involving tangible property the' exercise ot actun! power will usually forestall the daJiser (C.Pl.Pbn.1788) (recognition without full faith and



Ch. 2

§ 50



Sheriirs levy. Attachment and garnishment proceedings of sister states by. themselves have no effect beyond the res. Harris v. Balk 18 required North Carolina to give full faith and credit to Maryland proceedings which garnished a North Carolina citizen's claim. This' holding did not concern the garnishment proceedings as such but the subsequent judgment against the garnishment debtor.II Such proceedings may, however, be entitled to out-of-state recognition, and the sheriff's levy following an attachment may require full faith and credit in sister states as do any rights thus created. 20
Other administrative acts. Questions regarding the constitutionality of "extraterritorial" zoning regulations within a state 11 might well assume interstate implications, particularly in cities' close to, or crossing, the border. Full faith and credit may be due
of double escheat. See e. ::. In re llensebefrend's Estate. 2S3 APII.DI'\'". 4(13. 12S x:r.S.2d j3S (19M), etlcbentln:: d(>C('l'lent's New York bonk accounts OR aJtolnRt the claim of the California (lomlciliary ad· milllRtrntor actlnJt nl': an ancillary ndministrntor In N~w York. ~l>(' nllo\o f\tnte h:r Yan JU,W'r '\". Amerl· can Su::ar Rl'f. Co., 20 N.J. 2SG, no A.:!d ;Gi' n95li1: In re Hull Copper Cu.• 4G Ariz. 2;0. 50 P.2d 660 (19~): Rest. f 300. Illut ct. In re :\o1:tn's ~Inte, lSii Cnl.App.2d 10. 28G P.2d S9!I m':a;") I]. A~ to En::lIsh law COlllllarc In re Barnett's Trusts 11002) I Cll. S.Ji; In the Estnte of ),JUSUfU". [1930] 2 All E.R. 1600: Cheshire 559: ,dO, Esuu<> of )Ioldonndo, [19M] 2 Weekly L.n. &1, [19:;3] 2 All E.n. lilj9. Cf. Cbeshire 57fl. 18. Barris v. Balk, 19S 'C.S. 21ii. 2:; S.Ct. 02!i (1904). See supra § 20, notes 4fI. 19. cr. Buron BoldiD~ Corporntlon T. LincollTMlne Operating Co., 312 t·.H. 11"1. 01 S.('t. 513 (lO·m. l<'or a similar ense 100'oh'il1;': illterllmiollal ret."(,~. nltion see Holmes '\'". Ilemr-:en. 20 Johus. !!!ro, 2GB, 11 Am.Dec. 209, 2SO (No t.lS2!!, (Englnnd). 20. See Green T. Van Buskirk, 5 '\\all. (72 U.s.) SOi, ; Wall (;4 U.S.) 139 (1800, lEifIS); supra § 9 note 9; and d. Sauders '\'". Armour FertJUZC!r Works, 292 U.S. 190, 54 S.Ct. 0.7 (19:U1 (lien created br garnishment). 21. See Bartelt, Extraterritorial Zoning: Re6~­ tions on its Validltr, 32 N.D.Lawyer 36. (10:;;); Bouwsma, Tbe Validity of Extraterritorial Municipal Zoning, 8 Vand.L.Re\". S06 (1955). For an 1Dter-cltr case, see CreskiU v. Dumont, 2S N.J. Super. 26, 100 A.2d 182 (1953); and in general Horack and Van Nolan, Land Use Conuols (19M) &581t

to such regulations. Individual administrative acts such as the issuance or recordation of certificates, may also be entitled to recognition; so that refusal to recognize a judicial recordation of a birth certificate cannot properly be based on the ground that the judge's role in such cases "partakes of an administrative function." 12 But the most important fields in which the recognition of administrative acts may yet gain increased relevance are the law of marriage a.nd of • extra-judicial assessment of support.22a For Blackstone as for Story, marriage was nothing but a "civil contrad" t3 And to this day American conflicts law subjects to the lex contractus both the formal and essential validity of marriages." This practice has been attacked on various grounds, primarily because it permits easy evasion of restrictive rules of the domiciliary law. lIS Almost all other countries, including England, subject the essential validity of a marriage to the personal law of the spouses, 1. e., either to the law of their domicile or natlonality.16 This choice of law rule may nave increased the inclination to treat marriage contracts as creating a status, i e., of a legal relationship endowed with effects reaching beyond those bargained for by the parties to the contract 2": A status concept based on per22.

sonallaw, however, raises difficult questions where the concepts of maniage differ between the. countries involved in a con1iicts . case; 18 and it becomes highly uncertain by . its reference to often unascertainable foreign laws. .... These difficulties are compounded once the status concept is implanted, as it was in this country,l9 in a law which, based on a contractual theory, in principle subjects the validity of a marriage in every respect to the state of ceiebration. 3o Since that state is not obliged to examine the requirements of the .. personal law of the parties, and since each state reserves to itself re-examination of the marriage under its own public policy, recognition of the "status" may vary from state to state, thus destroying the very purpose and, indeed, concept, of status. Conclusion of marriage before, or recordation by, a public official may yet come to be required in this country. If this should oc·cur, there would be no reason why full faith. 'and credit or comity should not be extended to his act,31 provided that new choice of law rules were to refer him to all or some of the
28. 1 Rabel 221ft'.; fi 51 note 27.

laws of the parties' domicile. Error in their application or reservations ·of public polic)' would no more affect the ·claim to recogni. tion than with regard to other sister state "judgments." 32 General jurisdictional rules patterned on those of forum non conveniens or based on "marriage evasion statutes," 33 could prevent abuse. The suggested approach would produce greater certainty in the conflicts law of marriage. It would also make it possible to relate legitimation by marriage to the act of marriage and thus rationalize existing 'authority :u more consistently than current doctrinary tests. 35 But probably reform will have to 'await federal legislation under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

§ 50. It has been seen that judgments of foreign countries and "acts and judicia1 pJ'Oceedings" of sister states have, for purpo~e: of recognition, been held to include certa.i!·. legislative and administrative acts (§ 48). On the other band, recognition is not neces·
32. Infra § 56. 33. The Uniform MaTrlage and )lnrringe License Act and Uniform Mnrrin~e E\"Uldon Act were adopted only by few state-: ond withdrllwil In 1943. 9 U.L.A. (19:;i) ]l. XXL A new Luifurm Marrla::e License Application Act, lOrIO, has JlOI yeT been adopted by any state. {) t:.L.A. (l1J~j. p. XYII. -See also infrn § 79 note {j; Infra ! )3!1 notes iI-i3. 34. See Skeadaf:l v. SklRroff. Sf n.l. 206, 12!! A.2(1 444 (1950), <:ert. d~n. 851 U.S. nss, 7G S.Cr.. 10;;1 (l95G) ; In rc Filtzer's Estate. 33 Cal.2(l 770. :!().i P.2d 3ii (lIM9); Magner '\'". Hobby. ~15 F.2d 190 r2(1 Clr.1D54) ; Goodrich 434tr.; Anno., 33 A.L.1t.:!d 700. 35. Rest. §§ 139, 140 Oaws of domiciles of paMI: at time of cbild's birth and of leltltimatjn~ ort I Note. 20 Ban.L.Rel·. 400 (looj). See also Olmllu'; v. Olmsted, 190 N.l:. 458, sa X.E. 569 (1908). <:In: ifieation would be partJcl)larly- desirable in extf'. national cases. Compare In re EnJrelhardt's l~ tate, 272 Wis. 275, 7(; N.W.2d 631 (10:;0) (lex fori toith Crlstr ,", Rasmussen, 334 Mass. 703, 13" :E.2d 180 (lMO) (portuguese law): In re Krall:N Estate, 158 N.Y.S.2d 551 (Surr.l0:;') (Danish ):.\\ For English law, see Cheshire 42itf., Dlcey'£ (,'I); fiiet of Laws (7th ed. 1958) 43atr. See also Illl., t 141 notes 17-28.


Cheshire 302.

See also infra

United Stntes T. CaRares-Moreno, 1!!2 F.Supp. air; (S.D.CnI.1o:H) (alteruath'e ~ound lack of state jurisdiction o,"el' U. S. citizensblp).

Storr 100ft., drawing on Scottish nnd conti· nental autborlty. Sec also id. at 110 on early doubts.

22a. But ~(' California '\'". Copus, 158 Tex. 100, 300 S.W.2d 227, C<'rL den. 350 U.S. 9Oi, 78 S.CL 1000 (19[lS). Concerning such "quasl·jud~ents·' usual. lr dealt "'Itb as calling for "full fnlth and credit to statutes," see supra § 9 notes 12!. 23. Blackstone, Commentaries on tbe Laws ot Enl[' land (J ones' ed. 1915), Book I, § 433; Story 100. 24. Talntor. lJarria::e In the Conflict of Lews. D '~aDd.L.ne'\'". 60; (1956); 1 Rabel 223ff. See infra §§ 138. 139. 25. 1 Rabel 8UfI. 26. 1 Rabel 280ft'. 27. See infra § 51 note·2i. Though analytien1lr \In· tenable-to some degree all cpntractual relations are of this kind,-tbe concept-'Is helpful io many ways. See 6raveson, Status In tbe Common La\\' (1953) SOff., 10;; Intra § 135.

30. Goodrich 850 seeks to preserve tbe interest of tbe "sovereign at the domicile" by treating the lex celebrationis 8S delegated by the law of the dom· icile. See also infra I 189 note 80.

31. See Wllklns '\'". Zelichowski, 43 N.J. Super. 598, 1-'J9 A.2d 459 (1957), rev'd 26 N.J. 8;0. 140 A.2d 65 (195S), holding a sister ~tate marriage "binding" "on principles o! comitr" to a "public act and tbe contract "'hlcb it vitalized." Orsburn '", GraTes, 2!3 Ark. 727,210 S.W.2d 496 (1948) concedes full faith and credit to a sister state common la\\' marriage, apparently as required br the common la\\' of the state of tbe "ceremonr." There is some indication that such full !altb and credit could preclude attacks against prior sIBter state di,"orces. See Old Colonr Trust Co. v, Porter, 824 )lass. 581, 88 N.E.2d 135 0949) (forum divorce alleged immune from attack in view ot sucb immunity under the law of New York. state of subsequent marriage, allegation rejected under different new of New York law).
Ehrenzwtlg Conflict of La_U




§ 50




.rUy accorded all those foreign judgments ld judicial proceedings emanating from ,urts. It has been said that all that is need.1 to establish the existence of a judgment ·r this purpose is to show that the renderg authority had CIa judge, a clerk, a seal, ,d records".l But procedural differences be:een the various legal systems have created my problem situations, particularly ~ to lat in civU law countries are Imown as tralitigious proceedings.2 Such proceed;s, with their stress upon the state's ·.!dominant interest and "paternal" atude, require and offer a cooperation tween courts which has no place in ~ adversary procedures of common law .d equity. A selection from particulartroublesome conflicts will illustrate this lint. In addition those problems will be 5cussed which are attributable: to the -culiar position of courts in admiralty, prolte, and bankruptcy; to the growing respect t' arbitration; and to the peculiarities of luity (in some- respects an equivalent of ~tra-litigious proceedings). The discussion conflicts problems