Austria (Emperor of) v Day and Kossuth
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 June 1861 |
| Date | 07 June 1861 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 45 E.R. 861
BEFORE THE LORD CHANCELLOR LORD CAMPBELL AND THE LORDS JUSTICES.
S. C. 2 Giff. 628; 30 L. J. Ch. 690; 4 L. T. 494; 7 Jur. (N. S.), 639; 9 W. R. 712. See Ainsworth v. Walmsley, 1866, L. R. 1 Eq. 525; Springhead Spinning Company v. Riley, 1868, L. R. 6 Eq. 558; Mulkern v. Ward, 1872, L. R. 13 Eq. 621; Pattisson v. Gilford, 1874, L. R. 18 Eq. 263; Levy v. Walker, 1879, 10 Ch. D. 444; Hole v. Bradbury, 1879, 12 Ch. D. 903; In re Riviere's Trade Mark, 1884, 26 Ch. D. 52.
[217] the emperor of austria v. day and kossuth. Before the Lord Chancellor Lord Campbell and the Lords Justices. May 22, 23, 24, June 7, 1861. c' [S. C. 2 Giff. 628 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 690 ; 4 L. T. 494 ; 7 Jur. (N. S.), 639 ; 9 W. R. 712. See Ainsworth v. Walmslf.y, 1866, L. R. 1 Eq. 525 ; Springhead Spinning Company v. Pal/'if, 18G8, L. R. 6 Eq. 558 Mulkern v. Ward, 1872, L. R. 13 Eq. 621 ; Pattisson v. Oilfm-d, 1874, L. R. 18 Eq. 263; Levy v. Walker, 1879, 10 Ch. D. 444; Hole v. Bradbury, 1879, 12 Ch. D. 903 ; In re Riviere's Trade Mark, 1884, 26 Ch. D. 52.] The Defendant Kossuth, a Hungarian refugee, caused to be manufactured in England a large quantity of notes, which though not made in imitation of any notes circulating in Hungary, purported to be receivable as money in every Hungarian State and public pay office, and to be guaranteed by the State of Hungary. The Plaintiff, as King of Hungary, sued to have these notes delivered up and to restrain the manufacture of any such, alleging that the issue of such notes would injure the rights of the Plaintiff by promoting revolution and disorder, would injure the State by the introduction of a spurious circulation, and would thereby also injure the Plaintiffs subjects. Held, that, although the Court has not any jurisdiction to restrain the commission of acts which only violate the political privileges of a foreign sovereign, the manufacture of these notes ought to be restrained. Per the Lord Chancellor. A foreign sovereign may sue in this country for a wrong done to him by an English subject, unauthorized by the English Government, in respect of property belonging to that foreign sovereign, either in his individual or his corporate capacity, or to his subjects, and the circulation of spurious notes purporting to be guaranteed by the nation is such a wrong. 862 THE EMPEROR OF AUSTRIA V. DAY 3DBO.F.& J. 218. Per the Lord Justice Turner. The Plaintiff, as representing his subjects, was entitled to relief on account of the pecuniary injury which a spurious circulation would inflict on them ; but qucere, whether he would have been entitled to relief on the ground of the loss arising to the State from such spurious circulation-the issue of such notes being, so far as such loss only was concerned, a mere invasion of the prerogatives of a foreign sovereign and the political rights of his subjects. This was an appeal from the whole of a decree of Vice-Chancellor Stuart restraining the Defendants from making notes purporting to be notes of the Hungarian State, and ordering them to deliver up to the Plaintiff the notes already made and the plates used for printing them. The case made by the bill was in substance as follows :- That the Plaintiff was King of Hungary, and as such had the exclusive right of authorizing the issue in Hungary of notes to be circulated in Hungary as money, and also the exclusive right of authorizing the Royal arms of [218] Hungary to be affixed to any document intended to be circulated in that country. That nearly the whole of the circulation of Hungary consisted of notes of the National Bank of Austria, issued under the authority of the Plaintiff as Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary, which circulated in Hungary as money, and were for various sums from one florin upwards. That the Defendants Day & Sons (the well-known lithographers) had by the direction of the Defendant Kossuth prepared plates for printing notes purporting to be notes of the Hungarian nation or State for various sums of money, and which were intended to be circulated as money in Hungary, and that they were engaged by the direction of Kossuth in printing such notes from the plates. That the body of each note was in the Hungarian language, and had on the border, in the German and Sclavonian and other languages, the amount for which it purported to be a note, and at the bottom a print of the Royal arms of Hungary. The body of a one florin note, when translated, was as follows :- " One florin. " This monetary note will be received in every Hungarian State and public pay office as " One florin in silver. " Three zwanzigers being one florin, and its whole nominal value is guaranteed by the State. " In the name of the nation, " kossuth, Louis." That the total amount of these notes which was being prepared was upwards of 100,000,000 florins. That Day [219] & Sons had in their possession a large quantity of them entirely or nearly completed, and unless restrained by the Court would deliver them to Kossuth. That Koisuth intended, as soon as he received them, to send them to Hungary and endeavour to introduce some of them into circulation there, and use the remainder for other purposes in Hungary, in violation of the rights and prerogative of the Plaintiff as King of that country, and, amongst other purposes, for the promotion of revolution and disorder there. That the Plaintiff had never authorized the manufacture of the notes or the use of the Royal arms of Hungary thereon; and that the introduction of the notes into Hungary would create a spurious circulation there, and by that and other means cause great detriment to the State and the subjects of the Plaintiff. That Day & Sons had notice of the purpose for which the notes were intended, and of Kossuth's want of authority to prepare or issue them. The hill prayed that Day & Son might be decreed to give up to the Plaintiff the plates, and any documents printed or lithographed therefrom, and any other documents in their possession purporting to be notes of the Hungarian State or nation, or notes with the Royal arms of Hungary thereon, and for an injunction restraining Day & Sous from printing or delivering to Kossuth any such notes. M. Kossuth by his affidavits denied that the Plaintiff was de jure King of Hungary, and entered at length into the grounds of this contention. He also denied SDBO.F.fcJ. 2M. THE EMPEROR OF AUSTRIA V. DAY 863 the Plaintiff's being tie facto King of Hungary on the ground that he had not been crowned King of Hungary, as was required by the fundamental laws of that country. He asserted that the Emperor had no authority to issue notes without the cotisent of the Diet; that the Diet had, in [220] 1848, authorized him, Kossuth, when Minister of Finance to Ferdinand V., to issue notes, but had never given such authority to anyone else. That such notes were issued, bearing his own official signature as Minister of Finance, but did not resemble the notes now in question. That the arms of Hungary were not Eoyal but national, and that any Hungarian might lawfully use them. That the use of them in Hungary without Royal authority was common ; and that they were introduced into the notes, not to give them any authenticity, but merely as a national emblem. He proceeded to say, " It is not true, but it is wholly and entirely contrary to the truth, that I have intended, as soon as I receive the notes, falsely in the said bill, called spurious notes, to send them to Hungary, and to sell some of them for divers sums of money to any persons resident there or elsewhere, and by this and other means to introduce the same into circulation in Hungary. ... I affirm and declare the fact to be, that, the present state of Europe and of the Austrian Government being such as to make the happening of great changes in the relations of lawful right and the dominion of force seem not only possible but probable, I deemed it to be my duty to take such means as I was able to meet such an emergency as might then probably arise, and to prevent the subjects and State, of Hungary from suffering the detriment that would necessarily follow from the want of a sufficient means of circulation as money, and I have accordingly had the notes in the said bill named prepared and made ready, but had already before the filing of the said bill made provision for their safe keeping in England until the happening of the emergency which could alone make the use of them in Hungary to be consistent with events. And I affirm and declare, that I neither have attempted, nor have ever had the intention to attempt, to introduce the said notes into Hungary, so long as the present condition of forcible dominion exists [221] there. What the Plaintiff calls ' revolution,' but which will in fact be the restoration of the laws and rights of Hungary, must itself have happened in Hungary before the notes in the said bill named can acquire the value of which the Plaintiff expresses so much fear, through their circulation in the kingdom of Hungary." It appeared that the notes in question were not similar in appearance to any notes circulating in Hungary, The Vice-Chancellor Stuart having made a decree according to the prayer of the bill, the Defendants Kossuth and Day & Son severally appealed. Mr. Roundell Palmer, Sir H. M. Cairns and Mr. Cotton, for the Plaintiff, in support of the decree. The first point set up by the Defendant relates to the Plaintiff's title to the Crown of Hungary. [THE lord chancellok. Surely that question depends merely on this, whether the Plaintiff1 is acknowledged by Her Majesty's Government as de facto King of Hungary, and we are bound to take judicial notice of the fact that he is so acknowledged. We cannot enter here into the question whether he is rightfully King.] As to the Hungarian law with reference to the circulation of paper money, the evidence of the Defendants leaves untouched this proposition, that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mbasogo and another v Logo Ltd and Others
...not, grant an injunction in the terms of (e) . The principles and the authorities 22 Much of the claimants' argument hinged on Emperor of Austria v Day and Kossuth (1861) 3 De G F & J 217. The defendants had printed banknotes in London. Louis Kossuth intended to introduce the notes into Hun......
- Karuppiah and Another; Vethanayagam
- Dunlop Rubber Company v Dunlop
-
Skatteforvaltningen (Danish Customs and Tax Divisions) v Solo Capital Partners LLP (in special administration)
...distinction of principle which the court was seeking to draw in the Emperor of Austria case [Emperor of Austria v Day and Kossuth (1861) 3 De GF & J 217]. In deciding how to characterise a claim, the court must of course examine its substance, and not be misled by appearances: see, for exam......
-
Is Cryptocurrency Money And Why Does It Matter?
...OUP, 2012) at 74 (§2.25). 15 R.S.O. 1990, c. P.10. 16 Emperor of Austria v. Day and Kossuth (1861), 3 De G.F. & J. 217 at 234, 45 E.R. 861 at 868 (Ch. App.), per Lord Campbell. 17 (1758), 1 Burr. 452 at 457, 97 E.R. 398 at 401 (K.B.). 18 (1758), 2 Keny 189, 199; 96 E.R. 1151, 1154 [Note......
-
Table of cases
...Attorney-General (No. 2), [1912] 1 Ch 158 (C.A.)............................ 360 Emperor of Austria v. Day and Kossuth (1861), 2 Giff. 628, 66 ER 263 .......... 159 Ex p. Canon Selwyn (1872), 36 JP 54 .............................................................. 173 Filártiga v. Peña-Irala......
-
Table of cases
...182, 185 Emperor of Austria v. Day and Kossuth (1861) 2 Gif. 628, 66 ER 263 ... 182, 185 Fothergill v. Monarch Airlines [1981] AC 251 (HL) ....................................57, 275 Garland v. British Rail Engineering [1983] 2 AC 751 (HL) ..............................161 Heathield v. Chil......