Dolder v Lord Huntingfield. St. Didier v Lord Huntingfield
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 November 1805 |
| Date | 20 November 1805 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 32 E.R. 1097
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Mason v. Wakeman, 1848, 2 Ph. 517; Republic of Peru v. Dreyfus, 1888, 38 Ch. D. 358.
doldeb v. Lord huntingfield. st. didier v. Lord huntingfield.-'ò*ò; - *'- f ",Ñ-^.:"?f^ Nov. 10th, 1805. [SeOfasori v^ vfakeman, 1848, 2 Ph. 517; Republic of Peru v. Dreyfus, 1888, 38 Ch, D. 358.] Whether a Defendant can by answer refuse the discovery, insisting, that he is not bound to answer, Qucere. But. having given part of the discovery, he was compelled to answer as to the rest. Whether a foreign State, not acknowledged by this country, can maintain a suit here, viz. the Government of Switzerland, in consequence of the Revolution, suing for Stock, vested in trustees by the former Government, Queers. The Bill in the first of these causes stated, that previously to 1798 the magistrates and persons, in whom the powers of government of the several Swiss [284] cantons were respectively vested, remitted large sums to their agents in this country, for the purpose of being invested in the public funds ; and that large sums were so remitted by the governments of the cantons of Berne and Zurich, and the town of Neufchatel ; which were part of the public monies of the said cantons and town respectively ; which sums were invested accordingly for the public use of such cantons. The Bill then stated the several funds, in 1798 standing in the books of the Bank of England and the South Sea Company, in the names of the Advoyer the Less and Grand Council of the city and canton of Berne, the Burgomaster the Less and Grand Council of the canton or state of Zurich, and the town and citizens of Neufchatel; that prior to 1798 the said cantons of Switzerland were separate and independent states, connected by a certain league ; and in that year the several cantons became united and consolidated into one independent State or Commonwealth, which assumed the name of the Helvetic Republic ; and have ever since remained so united ; and from that time the said several states or cantons ceased to exist ; and there were no persons, answering the description of the former respective governments. The Bill farther stated, tbat by a law of the Helvetic Republic, passed on the 12th of March 1799, it was declared, that the property, acquired by the then late governments of the said cantons, as representing the sovereignty, was national property ; that part of said funds (specifying them) has been assigned by the Helvetic Republic to Antoine St. Didier, of the city of Paris, merchant. The Bill then stated the title of the Plaintiffs, as the Llandamman and two Stathalters of the Hel-[2Q5]-vetic Republic ; in whom by the constitution of the Republic the executive power is vested ; and prayed, that the Defendants, the Bank of England and the South Sea Company, may be decreed to transfer to the Plaintiffs, and to pay the dividends accrued ; and that the other Defendants, the agents, may be decreed to pay the dividends, received by them. The agents by their answer, admitting the remittances, and investment of the money in the funds, &c., and that prior to 1798 the cantons of Switzerland were separate and independent states, connected by a league, stated, that in 1798 a revolution took place in Siuifeerlanil : and tbat the said several states and cantons. G. xii.-35* 1098 BOLDER U HUNTINGFIELD (LORD) 11 VES. JTJN. 286. and among others the cantons of Berne and Zurich, ceased to exist, or to be separate and independent states ; and that there was not from tins time of such revolution any person, in whom the. government of Bern?, and Zurich was vested, or answering the description of " Advoyer the Less and L! rand Council of the City and Canton of " Berne, the Burgomaster the Less and Grand Council of the Canton or State of " Zurich, and the Town and Citizens of Ncufchatel" ; and that they are informed and believe, another Revolution lias taken place in Switzerland ; and the powers of government are now vested iti different persons from those, in whom they were vested at the times, when the transactions in the Bill mentioned are represented to have taken place. They submitted, that the Plaintiffs upon their own shewing by their Bill have no title to the relief prayed, or to any account of the dividends, from the Defendants ; and that the Attorney Ueneral ought to be a party. A similar Bill was in January 1803 filed by St. Didier, described as residing at Paris, claiming under the assignment ; and a similar answer was put in. The [286] Master having reported the answer insufficient in each cause, Exceptions were taken to the Report. The Defendants had, after the expiration of the usual time, applied for leave to demur ; which was refused. Mr. Richards, Mr. Hollist, and Mr. Wintkrop, in support of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The “Maduro Board” of the Central Bank of Venezuela v The “Guaidó Board” of the Central Bank of Venezuela
...City of Berne v Bank of England (1804) 9 Ves Jun 347; Dolder v The Bank of England (1805) 10 Ves Jun 352; Dolder v Lord Huntingfield (1805) 11 Ves Jun 283). Later cases arose out of the revolt of the Central and South American colonies against Spain in the 1820s ( Jones v Garcia del Rio (18......
- Kawasaki Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha of Kobe v Bantham S.S. Company
-
Commonwealth Shipping Representative v P. & O. Branch Service
...that judicial notice may be taken of the existence of a state of war between this country and another ( see per Lord Eldon in Dolder v. Lord Huntingfield, 1805, 11 Ves., at p. 292, and per Lord Ellenborough in R. v. De Berenger, 1814, 3 M. & S. at p. 69); and it was said in Taylor v. Barcla......