Wadsworth v The Queen of Spain
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1851 |
| Date | 01 January 1851 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 117 E.R. 1246
QUEEN'S BENCH.
S. C. 20 L. J. Q. B. 488; 16 Jur. 164. See Westoby v. Day, 1853, 2 El. & Bl. 620; Frith v. Guppy, 1866, L. R. 2 C. P. 36; Mayor of London v. Cox, 1867, L. R. 2 H. L. 270; Larivière v. Morgan, 1872-73, L. R. 7 Ch. 550; L. R. 7 H. L. 423; Cooke v. Gill, 1873, L. R. 8 C. P. 113; Whinney v. Schmidt, 1873, L. R. 8 C. P. 120; Worthington v. Jeffries, 1875, L. R. 10 C. P. 387; The Parlement Belge, 1880, 5 P. D. 210; Mighell v. Sultan of Johore, [1894], 1 Q. B. 163.
/ [171] in THK matter of wadsworth and the queen of spain. in the \\c]\t.).(?.jo. matter of de haber and the queen or portugal. 1851. Property in ^ / England, belonging to a foreign sovereign prince in his public capacity, cannot be seized under process in a suit instituted against him in this country on a cause of action arising here. And, therefore, where a suit had been brought in the lord mayor's court against the Queen of Spain upon bonds of the Spanish Government bearing interest payable in London, and moneys, belonging to her as the Sovereign of that country, had been attached in the hands of garnisheea in London to compel her appearance, the Court of Queen's Bench granted a prohibition. Although the action was not, in form, brought against the Queen as Sovereign : it appearing sufficiently by the proceedings that she was charged with liability in that character. The same law prevails, a fortiori, where the action is avowedly grounded on acts done by the defendant in the character of Sovereign. The garnishee, in such a case, is a proper party to move for the prohibition. And it is no objection, that he has put in a plea (nil habet) to the attachment. Nor is the motion premature, if made after the pleading of such plea and before trial of the issue, though no other excess of jurisdiction is imputed to the lord mayor's court than its having entertained the suit. The motion may also be made by the sovereign prince who is defendant in the mayor's court, though such defendant has not appeared, and the garnishee has not pleaded. The prohibition may go at the instance of a mere stranger. [S. C. 20 L. J. Q. B. 488; 16 Jur. 164. See Westoby v. Day, 1853, 2 El. & Bl. 620; Frith v. Guppy, 1866, L. E. 2 C. P. 36; Mayor of London v. Cox, 1867, L. R. 2 H. L. 270; Larivtire v. Morgan, 1872-73, L. R. 7 Ch. 550; L. R. 7 H. L. 423; Cooke v. Gill, 1873, L. R. 8 C. P. 113; WMnney v. Schmidt, 1873, L. R. 8 C. P. 120; Wmthingtvn. v. Jeffries, 1875, L. R. 10 C. P. 387 ; The Parlement Beige, 1880, 5 P. D. 210; Mighell v. Sultan of Johore, [1894] 1 Q. B. 163.] In the first of these cases, Chambers, on behalf of the after mentioned garnishees, moved, in last Easier term (April 15tb), that a prohibition might issue to the lord mayor's court of London, under circumstances disclosed in an affidavit sworn by Henry Treasure, clerk to Messrs. Lawford, attorneys, and Joaquin Scheidnagel and George Stone, garnishees in the suit Wads/worth v. The Queen of Spain, depending in the said Court. H. Treasure deposed : that he hath the conduct and management of a certain cause now pending in the court of the lord mayor of the City of London, wherein one Thomas Page Wadsworth is the plaintiff, and Her Catholic Majesty Dona Isabel Segunda, Queen of Spain [172] (in the said cause described as Her Most Christian Majesty Dona Isabel Segundar Queen of Spain) is defendant, and wherein the above named deponent Joaquin Scheidnagel is garnishee, and also the above named deponent (b) Reported by C. Blackburn, Esq. 17 Q. B.17S. WADSWORTH V. THE QUEEN OF SPAIN 1247 George Stone, together with John Martin, James Martin and Robert Martin, are garnisbees, in two certain attachments issuing out of the said court. That the cause of action, as appears by an affidavit filed in the said court by T. P. Wadsworth on 30th December, 1850, is for 10,0001. sterling for interest alleged to be due to him from Her said Catholic Majesty upon certain bonds or certificates dated respectively the 10th December 1834, and stated by Wadsworth to have been duly made and entered into by or on behalf of Her Majesty the then Queen Regent of Spain, in the name of her august daughter the said Donna Isabel, &c. the defendant, by virtue of the law decreed by the Cortes and sanctioned by Her said Majesty the said Queen Regent in the name of her said daughter the Queen of Spain, on 16th November, 1834 ; and of the alleged treaty between the Minister, Secretary of State for the Finance Department of Spain, and Mons. Ardoin, banker, of Paris, on 6th December, 1834. The deponent George Stone stated that, on 30th December, 1850, he and his partners, John Martin, James Martin and Robert Martin, who, with deponent, carry on business as bankers in the City of London, were served with the following document, addressed to them and dated December 30th, 1850. " Take notice that, by virtue of an action entered in the lord mayor's court, London, against Her most Christian Majesty Dona Isabel Segundar Queen of [173] Spain, defendant, at the suit of Thomas Page Wadsworth, plaintiff, in a plea of debt upon demand of 20,0001., I do attach all such moneys, goods and effects as you tiow have, or which hereafter shall come into your hands or custody, of the said defendant, to answer the said plaintiff in the plea aforesaid : and that you are not to part with such moneys, goods or effects without license of the said court. "CHAS. sewell, Serjeant at Mace. "GEO. ashley, Plaintiff's Attorney, Lord Mayor's Court Office, Old Jewry." Scheidnagel deposed that, on the same 30th December, he was served with a document, addressed to him, but in all other respects the same as that above set forth. That he is president of a commission called the Spanish Financial Commission, which was appointed in 1834 by the Government of the kingdom of Spain for the management in England of the affairs relative to the public debt of the said kingdom, and for facilitating the payment of interest or dividends payable on account of the said kingdom to the holders in England of certain bonds or certificates, and of other public securities issued by or on behalf of the said kingdom ; and that, as the president of the said commission, he hath, for the purpose of paying in England the coupons or half yearly dividends of the said bonds or certificates, from time to time received from the Director General of the said kingdom of Spain, one of the ministers of the said Queen of Spain, divers large remittances ; and that the same have accordingly from time to time been applied to the purposes of such payments as and when the holders of the said bonds have presented to the said [174] commission the said coupons ; but that the holders of a large number thereof had not, at the time of the service of the said two attachments, presented such coupons, or in any other manner applied for payment of the dividends or interest in respect thereof; and the residue of the said moneys, amounting to 74561. 19s. 6d. or thereabouts, so remitted as aforesaid, and applicable to the payment of the same, have therefore remained under the controul of the said commission, awaiting the presentation of the said coupons, and, at the time of the service of the attachment, were in the hands of the said Jo. Martin, G. Stone, Jas. Martin and R. Martin, as the bankers of the said financial commission : and that, some time previous to the days appointed for the payment of such respective half yearly dividends or coupons, and subsequent to the receipt of the remittances for such respective payments, the said financial commission, in conformity with the directions given by the said Director General of the said kingdom of Spain, caused advertisements to be from time lo time inserted in the English newspapers, naming the day on which such respective payments would be marie of the interest due upon the said bonds: and that deponent had not, at the time of the service of the said attachments respectively, nor, as he verily believes, had the said Jo. Martin, G. Stone, Jas. Martin and R. Martin, or either of them, in their possession or power any moneys, goods and effects of the said Queen of Spain as her private property and unconnected with the Government of her said kingdom : and that Her said Catholic Majesty Dona Isabel 1248 WADSWORTH V. THE QUEEN OF SPAIN 17 Q. B.17B. was, at the time of the commencement of the said action, and now ia, the reigning Sovereign of the kingdom of Spain, [176] and as such entitled to, and then enjoyed and is now enjoying all the rights, prerogatives and privileges appertaining to such sovereignty : and that the said bonds or certificates were made by the said then Queen Regent of Spain as aforesaid in her Sovereign character only, and for and solely on account of the said kingdom of Spain, and as an act of State in the government thereof, and not for or in respect of any private or personal debt owing by the said Qnaen Regent, or by Her said Catholic Majesty Dona Isabel, to the said T. P. Wadswortb : and that Her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baccus SRL v Servicio Nacional del Trigo
... ... The service Nacional del Trigo carry on business in Spain, The contracts were c.i.f. contracts in respect of the sale of 26,000 tons of rye by the Defendants ... The Queen of Portugal , referred to the fact that Lord Campbell relied on the Statute of Anne with regard ... ...
-
Jeyaretnam Kenneth Andrew v AG
...[1996] 1 SLR 609 (refd) Constitutional Reference No 1 of 1995 [1995] 1 SLR (R) 803; [1995] 2 SLR 201 (refd) De Haber v Queen of Portugal (1851) 17 QB 171; 117 ER 1246 (refd) Eng Foong Ho v AG [2009] 2 SLR (R) 542; [2009] 2 SLR 542 (refd) Intertek India Pte Ltd v State of Karnataka (2 August......
-
Baccus SARL v Servicio Nacional del Trigo [England, Court of Appeal.]
...in giving the judgment of the court (ibid. 213), referred to the judgment of Lord Campbell in De Haber v. The Queen of PortugalENRELR ((1851) 17 Q.B. 171), where he relied on the Statute of Anne, the Diplomatic Privileges Act, 1708, with regard to ambassadors, and said (5 P.D. 197, And then......
-
Jeyaretnam Kenneth Andrew v Attorney-General
...orders were very liberal, to the extent that even a “stranger” could apply for prohibition orders (De Haber v Queen of Portugal (1851) 17 QB 171 at 214). In fact, as a matter of the court’s discretion, any member of the public could have standing to apply for certiorari and prohibition orde......
-
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
...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 (supra)." - Per M.D Muhammad, J.S.C.......