Brunswick (Duke of) v King of Hanover
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 31 July 1848 |
| Date | 31 July 1848 |
| Court | House of Lords |
English Reports Citation: 9 E.R. 993
House of Lords
Mews' Dig. viii. 179, 180, 181, 182, 186, 294. S.C., below, 6 Beav. 1; 13 L.J. Ch, 107; 8 Jur. 253. Discussed in the Parliament Belge, 1880, 5 P.D. 207, and Mighell v. Sultan of Johore (1894), 1 Q.B. 149; and see London (Mayor of) v. Cox, 1867, L.R. 2 H.L. 262; Smith v. Weguelin, 1869, L.R. 8 Eq. 214; Hettihewage Siman Appu v. Queen's Advocate, 1884, 9 A.C. 588.
Foreign Sovereigns - Affairs of State - Jurisdiction.
REPORTS OF CASES heard in the House of Lords, and decided during the Sessions 1848-50. By C. claek and W. finnelly, Barristers-at-Law. Vol. II. CHARLES FREDERICK AUGUSTUS WILLIAM, Duke of BRUNSWICK,-Appellant; ERNEST AUGUSTUS, King of HANOVER, Duke of CUMBERLAND and TEVIOTDALE, in GREAT BRITAIN, and Earl of ARMAGH, in IRELAND,-Respondent [July 25, 27, 31, 1848]. [Mews' Dig. viii. 179, 180, 181, 182, 186, 294. S.C., below, 6 Bear. 1; 13 L.J. Ch, 107; 8 Jur. 253. Discussed in the Parliament Beige, 1880, 5 P.D. 207, and Mighell v. Sultan of Johore (1894), 1 Q.B. 149; and see1 London (Mayor of) v. Cox, 1867, L.R. 2 H.L. 262; Smith v. Weguelin, 1869, L.R. 8 Eq. 214; Hetti-hewage Svman Appu v. Queen's Advocate, 1884, 9 A.C. 588.] Foreign Sovereigns-Affairs of State-Jurisdiction. A foreign sovereign, coming to England, cannot be made responsible in the courts there for acts done by him, in his sovereign character, in his own country : held, therefore, that the King of Hanover, who was also a British, subject, and was in England exercising his rights as such subject, could not be made to account in the Court of Chancery for acts of state done by him in Hanover and elsewhere abroad, in virtue of his authority as a sovereign, and not as a British subject. This was an appeal against an order of the Master of the Rolls, allowing a d&t murrer to the appellant's bill for want of equity, and also for want of jurisdiction (6 Beavan, 1; 13 Law J., N.S. 107). [2] The bill, filed in August 1843, stated that in 1830 the appellant was the reigniagr duke of Brunswick, and was, in his private capacity, seised and possessed of real and personal estates of considerable value in Brunswick, England, Hanover, Frances and elsewhere; but that on the 6th of September, 1830, during his absence from Brunswick, a revolutionary movement took place there, in the course of which the government was overthrown, and he was prevented from returning to resume his authority as reigning Duke; that pending the said movement, a decree of the Germanic Diet of Confederation was passed, dated the 2nd of December, 1830, whereby the appellant's brother, William, Duke of Brunswick, was invited to take upon himself, provisionally, the government of the Duchy, and the Diet left it to the legitimate agnati of the appellant to provide for the future government thereof: that his late Majesty William the Fourth, as King of Hanover, was a member of the said Diet, and as such King, he or his Viceroy, the Duke of Cambridge, voted in support of the said decree: that in February 1831, his said late Majesty, and the said William, Duks of Brunswick, claiming to be the legitimate agnati of the appellant, caused to be published a declaration, purporting to depose him from the throne of the said Duchy, and declaring that the same had passed to William, Duke of Brunswick, who, in pursuance of such declaration, had ever since exercised the rights and authorities of Sovereign Duke of Brunswick. The bill further stated that in 1833 an instrument in writing, signed by his Majesty William [3] the Fourth, and William, Duke of Brunswick, and dated at St. James's the 6th of February, and at Brunswick the 14th of March, 1833, was promul- H.L. ix. 993 32 II H.L.C., 4 BRUNSWICK (DUKE of) V. HANOVER (KING OF) [1848] gated by them in the German language, which, being translated, was as follows: -ò " We, William the Fourth, King of, etc., and of Hanover, Duke of Brunswick and of Lunebourg, and we, William, Duke of Brunswick and of Lunebourg, moved by the interests of our house, whose well-being is: confided to us, and yielding to a painful but inevitable necessity, have thought it necessary to consider what measure the interests of his Highness Charles, Duke of Brunswick, the preservation of the fortune now in his hands, the dangers and illegality of the enterprizest pursued by him, and lastly, the honour and dignity of our house,may require; and after having heard the advice of a commission charged by usi with tie examination into this affair, and after having weighed and exactly balanced all points of fact and law; and whereas, after the dissolution of the German empire, the powers of supreme guardianship over the Princes of the empire, which up to- that period had appertained to the Emperor, devolved to the heads of sovereign states; we, taking into consideration, the laws and customs, and by virtue of the rights unto us belonging, in quality of heads of the two branches of our House, have decreed as follows : " Article the first.-Certain facts, either notorious or sufficiently proved, have caused us to arrive at the conviction that his Highness Duke Charles is at this time wasting the fortune -which he possesses in enterprizes alike impossible and dangerous to [4] himself and other persons, and is seeking to damage the just claims which certain persons interested now or hereafter may legally have in his property, we have consequently considered that the only method of preserving the fortune of his Highness Duke Charles from total ruin, is to' appoint a guardian over him. " Article the second.-In consequence of this conviction, we decree that Charles, Duke of Brunswick, shall be deprived of the management and administration of his fortune ; a guardian shall be appointed whom we shall choose by mutual consent from amongst the noble scions of our house, although the right of choice belongs to' the legitimate sovereign of the Duchy of Brunswick in virtue of his title alone." By the third, fourth, and fifth articles, the guardianship was confided to the Duke of Cambridge, then Viceroy of Hanover, and he was authorized to appoint sub-guardians for the management of the property, who should make an inventory thereof, and take measures for the preservation and administration of the fortune placed under the guardianship of his Royal Highness, to whom they should render an annual account of their management, to be by him transmitted to William the Fourth and the Duke of Brunswick for settlement and approval. By article the sixth the guardianship was to be " considered as legally established at Brunswick, where it was to have its locality." And by article the seventh the decree was to be published in the bulletins of the laws of the kingdom in the usual form, etc. At the foot of this instrument was added a note, signed by the respondent, them Duke of Cumberland, [5] and by the Dukes of Sussex and Cambridge, approving of the arrangement. The bill then stated that the said instrument was void, but nevertheless the Duke of Cambridge accepted the appointment of supreme guardian of the appellant's property, and entered into1 possession thereof to' a very considerable amount; and after several payments, properly made, there remained in his hands a large surplus for which he never accounted to the appellant: that on the death of William the Fourth, in June 1837, the respondent became King of Hanover, and thereupon by some instrument in writing, the particulars of which he refused to' disclose', but which was signed by him and William, Duke of Brunswick, the respondent was purported to be appointed guardian of the appellant in place of the Duke of Cambridge, under the instrument of the 6th of February and 14th of March, 1833, and with all the powers and authorities thereby purported to be conferred on the Duke of Cambridge : that shortly after such appointment, the Duke of Cambridge accounted to the respondent for all the real and personal estates of the appellant, possessed by him or his agents, and paid the balance due from him in respect thereof to the officers' of the treasury of Hanover, whereby the same came to' the hands of the respondent, and he, upon his appointment as guardian, entered into', and ever since continued, by himself or his agents, in the possession or receipt of the rents and profits of the real estates belonging to the appellant in his private capacity at Brunswick, and also from time to time took possession of further parts of the appellant's personal property in Brunswick and elsewhere, and sold and con-[6]-verted into money parts 994 brunswick (duke or) v. hanover (king of) [1848] n h.l.c., 7 thereof, which did not consist of money, and possessed himself of the produce of such ale, and from time to time made divers payments on account of the appellant and of the expenses incurred in the management of his property; but after allowing for such payments, there remained a large balance, to' the amount of several hundred thousand pounds, due from the respondent, and he never rendered to the appellant any account of the property so possessed by him. The bill further...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buttes Gas and Oil Company v Hammer; Buttes Gas and Oil Company v Hammer (No. 3)
...- a decision clearly on justiciability, and not merely on defence. 66More clearly as a recognition of a general principle is Duke of Brunswick v. King of Hanover (1848) 6 Beav. 1, 2 HLC 1: a case in this House which is still authoritative and which has influenced the law both here and overs......
-
Araya v. Nevsun Resources Ltd, 2017 BCCA 401
...behalf of Nevsun therefore took pains to draw our attention to earlier cases such as Duke of Brunswick v. King of Hanover (1848) 2 HLC 1, 9 E.R. 993, in which the Lord Chancellor observed that “no court in this country can entertain questions to bring Sovereigns to account for their acts do......
-
Nevsun Resources Ltd. v. Araya, 2020 SCC 5
...UKSC 3, [2017] A.C. 964; Blad v. Bamfield (1674), 3 Swans. 604, 36 E.R. 992; Duke of Brunswick v. King of Hanover (1848), 2 H.L.C. 1, 9 E.R. 993; Yukos Capital sarl v. OJSC Rosneft Oil Co. (No. 2), [2012] EWCA Civ 855, [2014] Q.B. 458; Oppenheimer v. Cattermole, [1976] A.C. 249; Buttes Gas ......
-
Yukos Capital Sarl v OJSC Rosneft Oil Company
...[2009] EWCA Civ 755; [2009] 2 CLC 84; [2010] UKSC 46; [2010] 2 CLC 793; [2011] 1 AC 763. Duke of Brunswick v King of Hanover (1848) 2 HL Cas 1. Empresa Exportadora De Azucar (CUBAZUCAR) v Industria Azucarera Nacional SA (IANSA) (The Playa Larga)UNK [1983] 2 Ll Rep 171 (CA). Henderson v Hend......