Hullet and Company, - Appellants; King of Spain, - Respondent
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1828 |
| Date | 01 January 1828 |
| Court | Privy Council |
English Reports Citation: 6 E.R. 488
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CHANCERY.
Mews' Dig. viii. 179, 181, S.C. 2 Bli. N.S. 31. See also King of Spain v. Machado 1827, 1828, 4 Russ. 225, 560; King of Spain v. Hullètt, 1833, 7 Bli. N.S. 359; 1 Cl. and F. 333. Among the cases in Which Hullett v. King of Spain has been cited, it may Suffice to refer to United States of America v. Wagner 1867, L.R. 3 Eq. 724; L.R. 2 Ch. 582; Brunswick (Duke of) v. Hanover (King of), 1844, 6 Beav. 13, 21, 37; and see Mighell v. Sultan of Johore (1894) 1 Q.B. 149; and South African Republic v. La Compagnie & Franco-Belge du Chemin du Fer du Nord (1897) 2 Ch. 487.
[169] appeal from the cocrt op chancery. HULLET and CO.,-Appellants; KING OF SPAIN,-Respondent. [Mews' Dig. viii. 179, 181, S.C. 2 Bli. N.S. 31. See also King of Spain v. Machado 1827, 1828, 4 Buss. 225, 560; King of Spain v. Hullett, 1833, 7 Bli. N.S. 359; 1 Cl. and F. 333. Among the cases in which Hullett v. King of Spain has been cited, it may suffice to refer to United States of America v. Wagner 1867, L.K. 3 Eq. 724; L.R. 2 Ch. 582; Brunswick (Duke of) v. Hanover (King of), 1844, 6 Beav. 13, 21, 37; and see Mighett v. Sultan of Johore (1894) 1 Q.B. 149; and South African Republic v. La Compagni& Framco^Belffe du Chemin dm, Per du Nord (1897) 2 Ch. 487.] Machado, as agent for the King of Spain, receives from the French government a sum of money, which that government had agreed to' pay to1 the King of Spain in satisfaction of the claims oi certain Spanish subjects on France. Machado brings the money to this country, and deposits a considerable portion of it in the hands of Hullet and Co-, of London. The King of Spain applies to Machado for the money, and Machado refuses to- deliver it, on the pretence that he is bound to pay only to such subjects of Spain as should be found ultimately entitled to it. Bill in the name of the King of Spain against Machado (out of the jurisdiction) and against Hullet and Co., for discovery, and payment of the money into court. Demurrer to the bill for want of parties, etc. but chiefly on the ground, that it had never been held that a foreign sovereign could sue in equity in this country. Order by the Court below overruling the demurrer, affirmed by the Lords. A foreign sovereign has a right to sue in this country in equity as well as at law. In this case, the King of Spain is the only party entitled to the money in the first instance. The bill filed 22d December 1827 stated the treaties of 30th May 1814, 20th November 1815, and 25th April 1818, for the adjustment of the claims upon France of the several Powers who had been engaged in the French revolutionary war; and also separate conventions of the 18th March 1818, and 30th April 1822, between the French and Spanish governments, who had mutual claims on each other, for the adjustment of these claims; and the French government agreed to pay the balance to such person as the Spanish government should appoint to receive it. [170] Don Justo Jose de Machado was appointed for that purpose, and his name was inscribed in the book of public debt of France for a sum amounting to about £500,000 in British money. When the Spanish constitutional war broke out in 1823, Machado sold out of the French funds, and brought the money to England. Bills, signed by Ferdinand, were drawn by the constitutional government of Spain on Machado in respect of this money, which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Union of Soviet Republics v Belaiew
-
Brunswick (Duke of) v King of Hanover
...or the accountable parties, are within reach of the jurisdiction." In the cases of Hullett v. The King of Spain (4 Russ. 225 and 560, 1 Dow & Cl. 169, 2 Bli. (N. S.), 31, 1 Russ. & My. 9, n., 1 Cl. & Fin. 333, and 7 Bli. 359), and Olyn v. Scares (1 Y. & Col. (Exch.) 644, and 7 CL & Fin. 466......
-
United States of America v Prioleau
...re-establishment of the Plaintiffs' authority, passed to them as public property of the United States : Hullett v. [561] King of Spain (1 Dow & C. 169); Emperor of Austria v. Day (3 De G. F. & J. 217); King of the Two Sicilies v. Willcoz (1 Sim. (N. S.) 301). It is clear that Fraser & Co. c......
- Monaco v Monaco