Brunswick (Duke of) v King of Hanover
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 January 1844 |
| Date | 13 January 1844 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 49 E.R. 724
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 13 L. J. Ch. 107; 8 Jur. 253; 2 H. L. C. 1; 9 E. R. 993. See Mayor, &c., of London v. Cox, 1867, L. R. 2 H. L. 262; Smith v. Weguelin, 1869, L. R. 8 Eq. 214; The Parlement Belge, 1880, 5 P. D. 207; Hettihewage Siman Appu v. The Queen's Advocate, 1884, 9 App. Cas. 588; Mighell v. Sultan of Johore [1894], 1 Q. B. 154; South African Republic v. Le Compagnie Franco-Belge du chemin de fer du nord [1898], 1 Ch. 195.
Reports of CASES in CHANCERY ARGUED and DETERMINED in the ROLLS COURT during the time of LORD LANGDALE, Master of the Rolls. 1842, 1843. By CHARLES BEAVAN, Esqr., M.A., Barrister-at-Law. Vol. VI. 1845. fCx [1] charles duke of brunsweck v. the kino of hanover. ,ò Nov. 15, 20, 21, 22, 23, 1843; Jan. 13, 1844. [S. C. 13 L. J. Ch. 107; 8 Jur. 253; 2 H. L. C. 1 ; 9 E. R. 993. See Mayor, &c., of Londm v. Cox, 1867, L. R. 2 H. L. 262 ; Smith v. JPeg-uelin, 1869, L. R. 8 Eq. 214 ; The, Parlement Beige, 1880, 5 P. D. 207 ; Hettihewage Sijnan ApjM v. The Quern'x Advocate, 1884, 9 App. Gas. 588; Mighell v. Sultan of Johore [1894], 1 Q. B. 154; South African Eepublic v. Le Conipaynie Franco-Beige du theinin de fer du nanl [1898], 1 Ch. 195.] Discussion of the question whether a sovereign prince is liable to the jurisdiction of the Courts of a foreign country, in which he happens to be resident, and as to the liability to suit of one who unites in himself the characters both of an independent foreign sovereign and a subject. A sovereign prince, resident in the dominions of another, is ordinarily exempt from the jurisdiction of the Courts there. A foreign sovereign may sue in this country, both at law and in equity; and, if he sues in equity, he submits himself to the jurisdiction, and a cross-bill may be filed against him, which he must answer on oath ; but a foreign sovereign does not, by filing a bill in Chancery against A., making himself liable to be sued in that Court for an independent matter by B. The King of Hanover, after his accession, renewed his oath of allegiance, to the Queen of England, and claimed the rights of an English peer. Held, that he was exempt from the jurisdiction of the English Courts for acts done by him as a sovereign prince, but was liable to be sued in those Courts in respect of matters done by him as a subject. Held, also, that the sovereign character prevailed where the acts were done abroad, and also where it was doubtful in which of the two characters they had been done. A foreign sovereign prince, who was also an English peer, was made a Defendant to a suit and served with a letter missive. The Lord Chancellor refused to recall it. The Defendant then appeared, and filed a demurrer for want of jurisdiction. Held, first, that the Lord Chancellor had not decided that the Defendant was liable to the jurisdiction of the Court; and, secondly, that the Defendant had not, by appearing, waived any defence to the bill. A bill, filed by Charles, ex-Duke of Brunswick, against the King of Hanover (a subject of this realm), stated, that by a decree of the Germanic Diet, followed by a declaration of his Agnati, he had been deposed, and his brother appointed successor, and that by an instrument signed by the reigning duke and by William the Fourth 6BBAV. 3. DUKE OF BRUNSWICK V. KING OF HANOVER 725 and his brothers, the Duke of Cambridge had been appointed guardian, of the Plaintiff's fortune, and the guardianship " was to be legally established in Brunswick, where it was to have its locality." That on the death of William the Fourth, the King of Hanover was appointed guardian, and possessed himself of the private property of the Plaintiff. The bill alleged that the instrument was void, and prayed a declaration to that effect, and for an account. Held, that the alleged acts under the instrument, were not such as rendered the Defendant liable to be sued or subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. Semble, also, that the instrument complained of was, under the circumstances stated in the bill, connected with political and State transactions, and was a State document. In a suit against a sovereign prince, who is also a subject, the bill ought, upon the face of it, to shew a case rendering the sovereign prince liable to be sued as a subject. A simple allegation that a foreign instrument depending on foreign law is null and void, is too vague. This case came on upon general demurrer to the bill filed by Charles Duke of Brunswick against the King of Hanover. [2] The bill stated that in September 1830 the Plaintiff was the Sovereign reigning Duke of Brunswick; that, in his private capacity, the Plaintiff' was possessed of real and persoaal property in England and elsewhere to a very considerable amount. That, on the 6th of September 1830, a revolutionary movement took place tit Brunswick, in the course of which the Government was overthrown. That a decree of the Germanic Diet of Confederation was made, on the 2d of December 1830, whereby the Plaintiff's brother, William Duke of Brunswick, was invited to take upon himself, provisionally, the Government of the said duchy, and the Diet left it to the legitimate agnati of the Plaintiff to provide for the future Government of the said duchy. That in February 1831 His late Majesty King William the Fourth and the said William Duke of Brunswick, claiming to be the legitimate agnati of the Plaintiff, caused to be published a declaration whereby they purported to depose the Plaintiff from the throne of the said duchy, and declared that the throne had passed to the said William Duke of Brunswick; and that, in consequence, the Plaintiff's brother had ever since exercised [3] the rights, powers, and authorities of Sovereign Duke of Brunswick. That, in the year 1833, the following instrument in writing, signed by King William the Fourth and William Duke of Brunswick, was promulgated by them : " We, William the Fourth, by the grace of God King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and of Ireland and of Hanover, Duke of Brunswick and of Lunebourg, and we William, by the grace of God Duke of Brunswick and of Lunebourg, make known what follows:-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 measures the interests (rightly understood) of His Highness Charles Duke of Brunswick, the preservation of the fortune now in his hands, the dangers and illegality of the enterprises pursued by the said duke, and lastly, the honour and dignity of our house may require ; and after having heard the advice of a commission charged by us with the 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 enterprises alike impossible and dangerous both to himself and [4] other persons, and is seeking to damage the just claims which certain persons interested now or hereafter may legally have upon his property ; we 726 DUKE OF BRUNSWICK V. KING OF HANOVER 6 BEAV. 8. 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 2d. 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 very noble or noble male 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. "Article the 3d. His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, Viceroy of Hanorer, having declared that he will willingly accept such guardianship, we confide the same to His Royal Highness by the present decree, which he will be pleased to consider as constituting his title to such guardianship. "Article the 4th. As His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge cannot, by reason of his position, by himself alone, exercise the functions of guardian; he is authorised to limit himself to the functions of supreme guardian, and to substitute, for the management and administration of the property, one or more persons, who, under oath, will proceed in their own name and on their own personal responsibility to make an inventory of the same, and to take measures for the preservation and administration of the fortune placed under the guardianship of His Royal Highness the supreme guardian, who is to be at liberty to grant to them fees proportionate to their duties. [5] "Article the 5th. The administrators shall render an annual account of their management to His Royal Highness the supreme guardian, who shall be asked to transmit the same to us, that we may cause the same to be settled and approved. Our confirmation shall be applied for, in all cases wherein the laws require the consent of the supreme guardian. "Article the 6th. The guardianship is to be considered as legally established in Brunswick, where it is to have its locality. "Article the 7th. The present decree shall be published in the bulletins of the laws of the kingdom, in accordance with the usual forms, and all whom the same may concern are bound to render obedience thereto. Given at our Palace of St. James the 6th of February 1833...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
TMSF v Wisteria Bay Ltd
...476; [1971] 2 All E.R. 98; [1971] 1 Lloyd”s Rep. 337; (1971), 115 Sol. Jo. 172, referred to. (4) Brunswick (Duke) v. King of HanoverENR(1844), 6 Beav. 1; 49 E.R. 724, followed. (5) Evans v. European Bank Ltd., [2004] NSWCA 82; (2004), 61 NSWLR 75; 1 BFRA 143; [2005] ALMD 6369; [2005] ALMD 6......
-
Belhaj v Straw MP (United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture)
...in this jurisdiction ( Blad's Case (1673) 3 Swan. 603 (P.C.); Blad v. Bamfield (1674) 3 Swan. 604; Duke of Brunswick v. King of Hanover (1844) 6 Beav. 1; (1848) 2 H.L.C. 1). In the last of these cases it was held that the court could not enquire into a sovereign act of a foreign state perfo......
-
Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company (Nos 4 & 5)
...immunity ratione personae and immunity from jurisdiction ratione materiae which he derived from Duke of Brunswick v King of Hanover (1844) 6 Beav 1, (1848) 2 HL Cas 1. At p 932F-H he cited from the speech of Lord Cottenham LC in that case at p 21 and said: "and he continues by distinguishin......
-
Yukos Capital S.a.r.L (a company incorporated in the Luxembourg) v OJSC Rosneft Oil Company (a company incorporated in the Russian Federation)
...604 and that it emerged more clearly as a recognition of general principle in the 19 th century case of Duke of Brunswick v Hanover (1844) 6 Beav 1, (1848) 2 HL Cas. He commented that in that case he found “the principle clearly stated that the courts in England will not adjudicate upon act......
-
Table of cases
...93 ER 698 (KB) ........................................................ 276 Duke of Brunswick v. The King of Hanover (1844), 6 Beav. 1, 49 ER 724 ...... 159 Dyson v. Attorney-General (No. 1), [1911] 1 KB 410 (Eng. C.A.) .................. 360 Dyson v. Attorney-General (No. 2), [1912] 1 Ch 1......
-
Rethinking the relationship between international and domestic law.
...(1764), 3 Burr. 1478 at 1480-81, 97 E.R. 936 (K.B.). (60) (1767), 4 Burr. 2015 at 2016, 98 E.R. 50 (K.B.). (61) (1844), 6 Beav. 1 at 45, 49 E.R. 724 (Rolls (62) (1906), 37 S.C.R. 385, 26 C.L.T. 380. (63) Ibid. at 394. (64) [1984] 1 S.C.R. 86, 5 D.L.R. (4th) 385. (65) International Law, supr......
-
Table of cases
...Duke of Brunswick v. he King of Hanover (1844) 6 Beav. 1, 49 ER 724 ........................................................................................... 182, 185 Emperor of Austria v. Day and Kossuth (1861) 2 Gif. 628, 66 ER 263 ... 182, 185 Fothergill v. Monarch Airlines [1981] AC 2......
-
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
...and to the government of the state or its component part or any of their departments. See Duke of Brunswick v. King of Hanover (1844) 6 BEAV 1; Wadsworth v. Queen of Spain (1851) 17 QB 171; Duff Development Co. Ltd. v. Kelantan Government (1924) AC 797 and Rahimtoola v. Nizam of Hyderabad (......