Baron de Bode v R
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1845 |
| Date | 01 January 1845 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 115 E.R. 854
QUEEN'S BENCH
S. C. 10 Jur. 773: affirmed in Exchequer Chamber, 13 Q. B. 364; 380; 14 Jur. 970: in House of Lords, 3 H. L. C. 449; 10 E. R. 176 (with note).
854 baron db bode's case sq. b. 208. [208] baron de book's case. 1845. A party claiming to have been the owner of lands, by virtue of a cession to him from A., since deceased, offered evidence, before any other proof of the cession, that A. actually managed the property, and, while so managing, declared that he did so in the name of the now claimant. Held (p. 243, &c.), admissible evidence. On Petition of Right, a commission issued, and an inquisition was thereupon found and returned into Chancery. Before any further proceeding, the suppliant filed a bill against the Attorney General to perpetuate testimony, reciting the petition. A commission to examine witnesses issued thereupon. The suppliant proposed to the Crown to join in the commission : but the Crown did not consent; and the commission issued ex parte. The Crown having traversed the inquisition, and the record being sent into this Court: Held (p. 244, &c.), that depositions taken under the commission to examine witnesses were admissible evidence on behalf of the suppliant, where the deponents were without the jurisdiction of the Court. Evidence being offered to prove the law of inheritance at a particular time in Alsace, one of the witnesses Called for that purpose, a French lawyer practising in Alaace, stated an cross-examination that the feudal law had been put an end to in Alsace, de facto, "by the torrent of the French Revolution," and that there was a decree of the French National Assembly to that effect, of 4th August 1789; and he said that he had learned this fact in the course of his legal studies. Held (p. 246, &c.), admissible evidence, though no other proof was given of the contents of the decree. Per Lord Denman C.J., Williams and Coleridge Js. Dissentiente Patteson J. B. presented a Petition of Right to the Queen, claiming certain money of the Crown. upon the facts therein stated, and praying that the Crown would order right to be done, that the Royal declaration should be endorsed on the petition to that effect, the petition referred to the Court of Chancery and duly received and enrolled, and the Attorney General required to answer it, and that the suppliant might prosecute his complaint against him and such other persons as need might require, and have leave to make him and them parties, and pray to obtain relief. The Queen referred the petition to the Court of Chancery; and the Chancellor indorsed "Let right be done:" aud thereupon that Court, by letters patent, appointed W. and others to inquire, upon the oath of jurors, of the truth of the matters in that petition: W., &c. returned into the Court of Chancery an inquisition taken accordingly; and finding that B. was the eldest son of a nobleman who married an English woman in England, and that the father was born in Germany, aud B. in England. That, before and since the Peace of Westphalia, the lordship and land of Sultz, in Lower Alsace, was an ancient fief descendible in the male line. That in 1786, the line of feudatories having failed, it belonged to the Archbishop of Cologne to appoint a new line of feudatories; and that he nominated the father of B., who was invested. That, before the Treaty of Munster, Lower Alsace formed part of the Kmpire of Germany. That, by that treaty, the Emperor of Germany ceded to the King of France all his rights and those of the Empire in Lower Alsace, subject to a proviso that France should leave the then feudatories of Sultz in the liberty and possession they had theretofore enjoyed as immediately dependent upon the Empire. That the treaty was ratified by subsequent treaties, the last named being that of Versailles between England and France in 1783. That, in 1791, B.'s father ceded his rights to B., who was then fourteen years old. That,: in 1793, B. and bis father left Sultz, and took refuge in the Austrian Army. That afterwards, in the same year, it was, by the French Department of the Lower Rhine (in which Sultz was) decreed that B. and his father should be declared emigrants, and all their property confiscated, in order to its being sold or alienated, agreeably to the laws relating to emigrants. That, in pursuance of the decree, the lordship and lands of Sultz were seized as confiscated by the persons then exercising the powers of Government in France, and were thenceforward treated as national property, and part thereof was sold under the authority of the French Government, and the residue continued in the possession o( that Government until after the restoration of the House of Bourbon in 1814 and 1815. That, by the Treaty of Paris between Great Britain and France, 1814, it was stipulated that commissioners should examine the claims of His Britannic Majesty's subjects upon 8 Q. B. 208. BARON DE BODES CASE 855 the French Government for the value of raoveable or immoveable property unduly (indftmeut) confiscated by the French authorities, loss of debts, or other property unduly detained under sequestration, since 1792, That, by the Treaty of Paris between Great Britain and France, 20th November 1815, incorporating a convention of that date, it was provided that British subjects having claims against the French Government, who had, in contravention of the after mentioned Treaty of Commerce, and since 1st January 1793, suffered in consequence of confiscation or sequestration decreed in France, and their heirs and assigns, subjects of His Britannic Majesty, should, conformably to the Treaty of 1814, be indemnified and paid, after their claims should have been recognised as legitimate, and the amount fixed, as after expressed; namely, that the claims of such subjects arising from lawa made by the French Government or any other claim whatsoever (with an exception not comprising B.'s case) should be liquidated and fixed, and a sura be inscribed in the Great Book of the Public Debt of France, as a guarantee for the claimants, and further suras be furnished if necessary : three calendar months to be allowed to claimants resident in Europe to present their claims; and those of British subjects to be examined according to a mode directed. That, by the Treaty of Commerce of 1786, in case of rupture between England and France, the subjects of either residing in the territory of the other were to be allowed to continue residence undisturbed while they conducted themselves legally, and, if ordered to withdraw, should have twelve months to do so, with their property, if they did not conduct themselves contrary to public order. That, in December 1815, M. and others were appointed, under the Great Seal, Commissionera of Liquidation, Arbitration and Deposit, to execute the convention. That, on 12th January 1816, B. transmitted his claim to the Prime Minister of France, who received it on 9th February 1816, but stated that he considered it inadmissible. That, by a convention between Great Britain and France, April 1818, it was agreed that, to effect payment of capital and interest due to British subjects, which had been claimed under the Convention of 1815, an annuity of three millions of francs should be inscribed in the Great Book of the Public Debt of France. That, by stat. 59 G. 3, c. 31, reciting that the commissioners had registered the claimants who presented themselves within the period prescribed in the Convention of 1815, and had paid certain sums, and that three of the said commissioners, by commission under the Great Seal dated 1818, had been appointed Commissioners of Liquidation, Arbitration and Award, to aet on behalf of His Majesty in England, to consider the claims of British subjects properly presented, and the remaining commissioners had been appointed Commissioners of Deposit to receive the inscriptions from the French Government; it was enacted that the Commissioners of Liquidation should apportion and distribute the sums provided by France, and order them to be paid to the claimants who had duly registered, in full if the sums paid were sufficient, in part if insufficient: the rejection of claims, subject to appeal to the Privy Council, to be final, and a discharge of both Governments in respect of any registered claim ; that unappropriated sums inscribed in the Great Book of France might, by the Commissioners of Deposit, on receiving directions from the English Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs or the Commissioners of the Treasury, be sold, and the proceeds transferred to the Commissioners of Liquidation, to be invested in public securities, for the purpose of being applied to liquidate claims, or, if all were liquidated to such purposes as the Commissioners of the Treasury should direct; and that the public securities should be deposited in the Bank of England in the names of the Commissioners of Liquidation, and the produce paid for the purposes iu the Act specified. That B.'s name and claim were not registered till after the passing of the statute. That, after all the registered claimants were paid, a surplus of 482,000). had remained with the Commissioners of Deposit, of which 200,0001. had been applied to satisfy claims tendered after the time mentioned in the Convention of 1815, and admitted under the authority of the Commissioners of the Treasury given in May 1826 ; and the residue was paid into the bank on the Government account by direction of the Treasury under stat. 59 G. 3, c. 31. That B.'s property, lost as above, with interest, was of the value of 364,0001. The Attorney General having traversed the matters of the inquisition, and a verdict on the traverse being found for B.: Held (p. 270, &c.), (on cross motions, to enter the 856 BARON DE BOOK'S CASE 8 Q. B. 209. verdict for the suppliant, and to enter judgment for the Crown noti obstante veredicto), that no right against the Crown appeared upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited v Norton (Waterford) Ltd T/A Teva Pharmaceuticals Ireland
...Bionics v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH [2023] EWCA Civ 637. Arrow Generics Ltd v. Merck & Co. Inc [2007] EWHC 1900 (Pat.). Baron de Bode's Case (1845) 8 Q.B. 208, 115 E.R. 854. Biogen Inc. v. Medeva plc [1997] RPC 1. E. Mishan & Sons Inc. v. Hozelock Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ. 871......
-
Yukos Capital S.a.r.L v OJSC Oil Company Rosneft
...law is as shown by its exposition, interpretation and adjudication: so in effect it was laid down by Coleridge J in Baron de Bode's case (1845) 8 QB 208, 266; in the Sussex Peerage case (1844) 11 Cl. & F. 85, 116, Lord Denman stated his opinion to the same effect as he had done in Baron de ......
-
Pacific Recreation Pte Ltd v S Y Technology Inc and Another Appeal
...to obtain the expert’s opinion as to such law’s effect. In relation to foreign statutes, Lord Denman CJ said in Baron de Bode’s Case (1845) 8 QB 208 at 251; 115 ER 854 at Properly speaking, the nature of such evidence is not to set forth the contents of the written law, but its effect and t......
-
Baron de Bode v R
...DECEMBER 11, 1845. (Reported in 8 Q.B. 208.) JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER CHAMBER ON WRIT OF ERROR, FEBRUARY 7, 1849. (Reported in 13 Q.B. 364.) JUDGMENT IN THE HousE OF LORDS ON WRIT OF ERROR FROM THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, JULY 10 and 11, 1851. (Reported in 3 H.L. 449.) Certain treaties......
-
Pleading and proving foreign law in Australia.
...of Williams J in Baron de Bode's Case that '[t]here is, in [foreign law], little analogy with the proof of facts ordinarily so called': (1845) 8 QB 208, 260; 115 ER 854, (104) Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 176; Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 176; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 63A; Evidence Act 2001 (Tas)......
-
Table of cases
...Attorney-General v. De Keyser’s Royal Hotel Ltd [1920] AC 508 (HL) ..........123 Baron de Bode v. he Queen (1845) 8 QB 208 .................................................238 Belfast Corporation v. O.D. Cars Ltd. [1960] AC 490 ...................................... 131 Benin v. Whimster [1......
-
Treaties
...v. he King [1932] AC 14 (HL); Rustomjee v. he Queen (1876) 1 QBD 487 (Eng QB), (1876) 2 QBD 69 (CA); and Baron de Bode v. he Queen (1845) 8 QB 208, “where,” says Lauterpacht, “the question seems, in a sense, to have been left open.” 32 Legislative jurisdiction to implement treaties is deter......