The Colombian Government v Rothschild
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 November 1826 |
| Date | 22 November 1826 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 57 E.R. 514
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 5 L. J. Ch. (O. S.) 43. Distinguished, United States of America v., Wagner, 1867, L. R. 2 Ch. 582.
Jurisdiction. Foreign States.
514 THE COLOMBIAN GOVERNMENT I'. ROTHSCHILD 18IM.-M. [94] the colombian government (*) v. rothschild. Nov. 22, 1826. [S. C. 5 L. J. Ch. (O. S,) 43. Distinguished, United States of America, v. Wagner, 1867, L. R. 2 Ch. 582.] Jurisdiction. Foreign States. A foreign State may sue in this Court; but where a bill was filed by " the Government of the State of Colombia and Don M. J. Hurtado, a citizen of that State, and Minister Plenipotentiary from the same to the Court of His Britannic Majesty, and now residing at 33 Baker Street, Portman Square, in the county of Middlesex," a general demurrer was allowed to the bill, because the description of the Plaintiffs did not enable the Defendants to know upon whom process was to be served, in case & cross-bill were filed. The bill commenced as follows: " Complaining, shew unto your Lordship, the Government of the State of Colombia, and His Excellency Don Manuel Jose Hurtado, a citizen of the said State, and Minister Plenipotentiary from the same to the Court of His Britannic Majesty, now residing at No. 33 Baker Street, Portman Square, in the parish of Mary-le-bone, in the county of Middlesex." It stated that the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Colombia having, on the 30th of June 1823, decreed that a loan to the extent of thirty millions of hard dollars, being about 7,500,000 sterling, should be raised upon the credit, and for the service of that State, Manuel Antonio Arrubla and Francisco Montoya, citizens of that State, were, under the decree, appointed Commissioners of the State for raising the loan, with the most ample powers and authorities to negociate and contract for it on such terms as might seem to them most advantageous to the State, and to pledge, for the redemption of the principal and payment of the interest, the branches of the revenue of that State, appropriated for that purpose by the decree; that the Commissioners, in pursuance of the powers and authorities so given to them, in April 1824 entered into [95] Sf negociation with Lyori Abraham Goldschmidt, since deceased, and Maurice Jacob Hertz, then carrying an business under the firm of B. A. Goldschmidt & Co., for raising a loan of 4,750,000 sterling, on the credit and for the service of the State of Colombia ; and that Messrs. Lyon Abraham Goldschmidt and Maurice Jacob Herts, having agreed to be employed in raising it, a memorandum of agreement, dated the 14th of April 1824, was executed by or on behalf of Arrubla and Montoya, of the one part, and Messrs. Goldschmidt & Co., of the other part; and that, in pursuance of a stipulation contained in that memorandum, a complete agreement, in writing, elated the 15th of May 1824, and made between Arrubla and Montoya, on behalf of the Government of Colombia, of the one part, and Messrs. B. A. Goldschmidt & Co., of the other part, was prepared and executed, and thereby Arrubla and Moutoya engaged, on the part of the Government of Colombia, to grant a general mortgage bond for 4,750,000 sterling, arid to deliver to Goldschmidt & Co., in a proper state for circulation, 23,150 certificates, which were to be signed by the Plaintiff Hurtado; that the mortgage bond should be considered as an absolute, inviolable and indestructible pledge, mortgage and security on all the revenues of the State of Colombia, present and future ; that all monies, the proceeds of the loan, should be placed at the disposal of Hurtado, and that his receipts should be a full discharge to Goldschmidt & Co.; and all arrangements which Goldschmidt & Co. might...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Netherlands Indies Government; Allied Company
-
Austria (Emperor of) v Day and Kossuth
...to the mass of its subjects. The cases of The City of Serne v. Bank of England (9 Ves. 347) and The Colombian Government v. Bothsddld (1 Sim. 94) shew that a bill on behalf of a nation, by a person not duly authorized to represent it, cannot be allowed. In The King of Spain v. HuUett (1 Bli......
-
Brunswick (Duke of) v King of Hanover
...Abr. tit. Court de Admiraltie, E. 3 ; 1 Roll. Rep. 133 ; Bulstr. 322 ; Hobart, 78, 113 ; Moore, 850 ; Columbian Government v. Rothschild, 1 Sim. 94 ; Barclay v. Russell, 3 Yes. 432 ; City of Berne v. Bank of England, 9 Yes. 347 ; Dolder v. Lord Hu-ntingfield, 11 Ves. 283 ; King of Hanover v......
-
Allied Company v Netherlands Indies Government
...in which the interest can properly be vested, I would allow the appeal and set the writ aside.” 1 See below. 2 [1902] A.C. 524. 3 (1826), 1 Sim. 94, 57 E.R. 4 [1867] L.R. 2 Ch. App. 582. 1 See above. 2 See above. 1 See above. 1 See above. 1 See above. 2 See above. ...