Pollard, Exparte, Re Courtney, 606 Poniatowska, Princess, v. Le Normand, 230, 232 Ponsford v. O'Connor, 719 Power v. Whitmore, 669, 783 Preston v. Lord Melville, 702, 709 Price v. Dewhurst, 709, 765 Pryor v. Wright, 568 Putnam v. Johnson and others, 43, 94 Rex v. Inhabitants of Oulton, 85 Robins v. Paxton and Dolphin, 229 Robinson v. Bland, 291, 475, 510, 547, 560, 577, 580 Roe v. Tranmarr, 557 Rogers, Exparte, 627 Rooker v. Rooker and Newton, 293 Roquette v. Overmann, 695 v. Macleod, 641 v. Ross, 412, 413 Rothschild v. Currie, 695 Rousillon v. Rousillon, 766, 788 Rowland & Sons, Affaire de, 455, 461 Royal Bank of Scotland v. Cuthbert (or Stein), 351, 624 Ruckmaboye v. Lulloobhoy Mottichund, 643 Ruding v. Smith, 11, 128, 211, 268, 325 S. Saint Agnan (Mdlle. Clermont de), 160, 183 Saint-Pater (Marquis de), Case of, 172, 185, 187 Saloucci v. Woodmass, 779 Santo Teodoro v. Santo Teodoro, 378 Sastry Velaider Aronegary v. Saunders v. Drake, 585, 713 Schmidt v. United Insurance Company, 669 School Directors v. James, 76 Scott v. Attorney-General, 378 v. Bently, 433, 440 v. Bevan, 585 v. Shearman, 778 Scottowe's Case, 231, 237 Scrimshire v. Scrimshire, 11, 83, 323, 384 See Reuter, The, 656 Seymour (Lord), v. Scott, 730 Shaw v. Gould, 229, 262, 394, 723 Shedden v. Patricke, 28, 410 Shiff v. Louisiana State Insurance Sill v. Worswick, 40, 435, 618 Simonin v. Mallac, 270, 313, 318, 320, 321 Simpson v. Fogo, 592, 766, 780, 788 Sinclair v. Sinclair, 383 Skottowe v. Young, 715 Slacum v. Pomeroy, 583 Smith v. Buchanan, 634 v. Nicholls, 770, 771, 787 Société Générale de Paris v. 44, 48, 54, 75, 105, 106, 117, 131, 156, 157, 167, 168, 171, 182, 184, 186 Sottomayor v. De Barros, 269, 291, 317, 322, 361 Sprowle v. Legge, 696 Stanley v. Bernes, 50, 51, 194, 196, 205 Stapleton v. Conway, 577, 580, 585, 609 State of Missouri v. Gibbs, 463 Steamboat New World and others v. King, 673 Steele v. Braddell, 316 Stephenson v. Langston, 49 Steuart v. Gladstone, 721 Strathmore Peerage Case, The, 117, 410 Strothers v. Reid, 624 Stuart v. Marquis of Bute, 171, 420, 421, 425 v. Moore, 171, 425 Studd v. Cook, 547, 597, 712 Sussex, Duke of, Case of, 29, 269, 741 Sutherland, In the Goods of, 217 Swan v. Phillips, 502 T. Tappan v. Poor, 9 Teutonia, The, 681 Thompson v. Advocate-General, 39, 51, 715 v. Bell, 613 Thorne v. Watkins, 40, 96 Thornton v. Curling, 230, 231 Thurburn v. Steward, 607, 616, 623 Tindall v. Taylor, 679 Tootal's Trusts, Case of, 121, 230 Trimby v. Vignier, 522, 548, 691, 738 Trotter v. Trotter, 712 Watts v. Shrimpton, 350, 352 Weir, Case of, 764 Westman v. Aktiebolaget Snickarefabrik, 731 Whicker v. Hume, 151, 229 Whiston v. Stodder, 560, 593, 677 Whitcombe v. Whitcombe, 66, 71 Wolfe v. Oxholme, 612, 634, 801 Wynne v. Calendar, 690 v. Jackson, 689, 691, 753 COMMENTARIES UPON INTERNATIONAL LAW. CHAPTER I. JUS GENTIUM-PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW. I. JUS INTER GENTES, or, as it is sometimes called, Public International Law, has been the subject of the three preceding volumes. It remains to consider in this, the last volume of the whole treatise (a), Jus Gentium, or, as it is sometimes called, Private International Law, or Comity (b) (Comitas) (c). (a) In redemption of the pledge given, vol. i. § xvi. (b) "Denique nonnunquam dum populus vicinus vicini mores comiter vult observare, et ne multa bene gesta turbarentur, de moribus statuta territorium statuentis, inspecto effectu, solent egredi."-P. Voet, De Statutis eorumque Concursu, s. iv. cap. ii. 17. John Voet, speaking of the rule that moveables are governed "lege loci, in quo eorum dominus domicilium fovet, ubicunque illa verè extiterint," observes, that in this case "de juris rigore communi, quasi gentium omnium consensu laxatum est; sic ut ex comitate profecta regula praxi universali invaluerit."-Ad Pandect. lib. i. tit. iv. pars ii. num. 12. So Huberus, De Conflictu Legum, s. 2, “id comiter agunt," &c. The word occurs once in the Digest: "Liber autem populus est is," &c., “sive fœdere comprehensum est ut is populus alterius populi majestatem comiter conservaret.”—Lib. xlix. t. xv. 7, § 1. Une espèce de droit des gens et de bienséance.”—Bouhier, cited by Felix, s. 11, p. 24, ed. Demangeat. 66 La compiacenza vicendevole."-Rocco, p. 119. "Mutua compiacenza."-Rocco, pp. 120, 253. (c) See a notice at the end of this chapter, of the Sources of Private International Law. II. We have seen, in the first of the foregoing volumes, that Sovereignty united with Domain (dominium eminens) establishes, as a fundamental rule of International Law, the exclusive jurisdiction of a State over all persons, acts, and things, within its territories (d); and, of course, over suits and actions in Courts of Justice, civil or criminal, arising within these limits. This is a proposition which does not only concern the natives of a territory, who are naturally subject to such a jurisdiction. There is no country, not only in Europe, but in the world, since the opening of China and Japan, in which there may not be foreigners, both transient and resident (e). Being allowed to enter a State, of which they are not natives, they have a strict right to be secured from injury while therein; the ill-usage of them, whether by positive mal-treatment (f) or by a denial of (d) The exception of the ambassador, which is a matter stricti juris inter gentes, and not comitatis juris gentium, is mentioned, vol. ii. pt. vi. Puchta, Instit. i. 360. (e) "Civil laws, when they causelessly and unreasonably exclude foreigners either from coming into the territories at all, or from trading there, are inhospitable; but these inhospitable civil laws are no otherwise contrary to the laws of nations, than as this law, like the general law of nature, enjoins the duties of humanity and benevolence. Every nation has by the law of nations, as every individual has by the law of nature, a right to judge for itself how far its intercourse, either of the commercial or of the friendly sort, is likely to be detrimental to itself; so that to cut off either or both sorts of intercourse, will be no act of injustice, though it will be wrong if it is done causelessly. A nation has a moral power to withhold its benevolence; and they from whom it is withheld unreasonably, though they are not treated friendly, are not injured.”—Rutherford's Inst. of Natural Law (2nd edit. 1832), p. 489. (f) The Jus Albinatus, or Albinagii (alibi natus), or droit d'Aubaine, now happily abolished in all civilized states, whereby the Crown seized on the property of the deceased foreigners, was, perhaps, strictly speaking, a violation only of Comity; but it was on the confines of a legal as well as a moral injustice. Some relic of this barbarism appears still to linger in parts of Germany, in which it would seem that the foreign heir pays 10 per cent. of his inheritance to the State. -Blume, S., des Deutsches P. Rechts, s. 452. This is called Gabella |