¹ Among the more recent studies of the question of state immunity may be mentioned: Walton, , “ Immunity in the Laws of England, France,Italy and Belgium ,” 2 Jour. Soc. Comp. Leg. (2nd Ser.), 252 Google Scholar; Weiss, , “ Compétence ou incompetence des tribunaux A I'egard des Etais Etrangers ,”Recueil de I'AcaMmie de Droit Int., 1923,I, 525 Google Scholar; Hayes, , “ Private Claims Against Foreign Sovereigns ,” 38 Harv. L. Rev. 599 Google Scholar; Fraenkel, , “ Juristic Status of Foreign States,” 25 Col.L. R. 544;Google Scholar Mendelsohn-Bartholdy, , “ Die Gerichtsbarkeit uberfremde Staaten,” 55 Juristische Wochenschrift, 2405Google Scholar; Kriickmann, , “ Inländische Gerichtsbarkett uber amlandische Staaten,” 1 Zeitschr. fur Ostrecht, 161 Google Scholar; Fairman, , “ Some Disputed Applicationsof the Principle of State Immunity,” 22 this Journal, 566 Google Scholar; Hervey, , “ The Immunity of Foreign States when Engaged in Commercial Enterprises,”Google Scholar; 27 Mich. L. R. 751. See also the Convention for theUnification of Certain Rules Concerning the Immunities of State Ships, Brussels, April 10,1926, 13 Revue de Droit Maritime Comp. 530; Hudson, Cases onInternational Law (1929), 561; report of the League of Nations Committee of Experts for the Codification of International Law on the legal status of government-owned ships employed in commerce, 20 this Journal, Spec. Supp., 260; report on the competence of courts in regard to foreign states, 22 ibid., Spec. Supp., 117.

² The problem has received scant consideration by scholars. Some mention of it will be found in Fraenkel, loc. cit., p. 557; Hayes, he. cit., p. 599; 30 Yale L. J. 526; 34 Harv. L. R. 773.

³ 7 Anne, C. 12.

⁴ Cross v. Talbot (1725), 8 Mod. 288; Seacomb v. Bowlney (1744), 1 Wilson, 20; Triquet v. Bath (1764), 3 Burr. 1478; Heathfield v. Chilton (1767), 4 Burr. 2015; Malachi Carolino's Case (1744), 1 Wilson, 78. In Engelke v. Musmann, (1928) A. C. 433,440, counsel for plaintiff argued that “ the Courtwill takejudicial notice of the status of a foreign sovereign or of an ambassador, and in case ofdoubt will inform itself through the Foreign Office, but this judicial notice is confined to the case of a representative directly accredited to the Crown or to the Foreign Office.” The status of other persons is a question of fact to be determined in the ordinary way. This distinction finds little support in the authorities.

⁵ In the practice of the period, process was begun by the arrest of the defendant, who had tosubmit to the jurisdiction to the extent of giving bail. The affidavit was a solemn means ofmaking a claim. In all the cases cited, supra, note 4, the defendant evidently did not appearin the sheriff's list, otherwisehe would not have been arrested.

⁶ Magdalena Steam Navigation Co. v. Martin (1859), 2 E. & E. 94, 113; Parkinson v.Potter (1885), 16 Q. B. D. 152; Macartney v. Garbutt (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 368; In re Suarez(1918), 1 Ch. 176. The Foreign Office certifies only those persons whose names have beenreturned to it by the head of legation. See a letter from the Foreign Office to the CountyCourt of Kingston-on-Thames, 8 Jour. Soc. Comp. Leg. (N. S.), 279.

⁷ Engelke v. Musmann, supra. An example of the earlier view is Fisher v. Begrez (1832),1 Cr. & M. 119, which held it not sufficient that the defendant's name appeared in the sheriff'slist. On the conclusiveness of the certificate of the Foreign Office regarding the status of aforeign state, see Duff Development Co. v. Kelantan, (1924) A. C. 797. On the status of aforeign sovereign, see Mighell v. Sultan of Johore (1894), 1 Q. B. 149. But cf. the Charkieh(1873), L. R. 4 Ad. & Ecc. 89. The Parlement Beige (1880), 5 P. D. 197, and the PortoAlexandre (1920), P. 30, areoften cited as illustrations that the Foreign Office's statementregarding the status of a state-owned ship is conclusive. But quaere whether the decisionsso hold. For the contrary German view of the conclusiveness of a certificate of the executive,see decision of the Oberlandesgericht of Darmstadt, Dec. 20, 1926, 1 Zeitschrift fur ausl. off.Recht und Volkerreeht, II, 204, and see infra p. 91.

⁸ 8U. S. v. Liddle, 2 Wash. C. C. 205, Fed. Cas. No. 15,598 (C. C. Pa. 1808); U. S. v.Benner, Baldwin, 234, Fed. Cas. No. 14,568 (C. C. E. D. Pa. 1830); U. S. v. Jeffers, 4 CranchC. C. 704, Fed. Cas. No. 15,471 (C. C. D. C. 1836); Lonsdale Ship v. Bibily (1925), 126 Misc.445, 213 N. Y. Supp. 170; Tailored Woman,Inc. v. Bibily (1925), 212 N. Y. Supp. 704.

⁹ These are generally cases involving consuls. Valarino v. Thompson (1853), 7 N. Y. 575;U. S. v. Trumbull, 48 Fed. 94 (S. D. Cal. 1891); Baiz v. Malo (1899), 27 Misc. 685, 58 N. Y.Supp. 806. In Herman v. Apetz (1927), 130 Misc. 618, 224 N. Y. Supp. 389, the wife of aminister was held to have waived her immunity. The court did not advert to the fact thather claim did not have the support of a certificate from the Secretary of State. Similarly,in many cases in which immunity was refused to consuls, no question was raised as to thepropriety of the defendant's own presentation of his claim. St. Luke's Hospital v. Barclay,3 Blatchf. 259, Fed. Cas. No. 12,241 (C. C. S. D. N. Y. 1855); Gittings v. Crawford, Taney 1,Fed. Cas. No. 5,465 (C. C. Md. 1838); Savic v. City of New York (1922), 203 App. Div. 81,196 N. Y. Supp. 442.

¹⁰ Holbrook v. Henderson (1851), 6 N. Y. Super. Ct. 619; Carbone v. Carbone (1924), 123 Misc. 656, 206 N. Y. Supp. 40.

¹¹ In re Baiz (1890), 135 U. S. 403. The District Court in this case speaks of two sorts of evidence as admissible to show diplomatic status, a certificate from the Secretary of State, and proof of the exercise of the principal diplomatic functions.

¹² The Anne (1818), 3 Wheat. 435.

¹³ In the Vrow Anna Catharina (1803), 5 C. Rob. 15, the Portuguese consul was allowed toclaim restitution of a ship captured in violation of Portuguese neutrality. It does not appearin the case whether or not he was expressly authorized by his government to do so.The Anne was followed in the recent case of Lyders t>. Lund, 32 F. (2d) 308, (N. D. Cal.1929). Suit was brought against a consul for services rendered as attorney for the RoyalConsulate of Denmark. The consul appeared specially to object to the jurisdiction. Hismotion to dismiss the bill was denied on the ground that, the claim of immunity being predicatedon the fact that the state of Denmark would be affected by the judgment, it must beshown that the defendant was authorized by his state to interpose such a claim, his office notconferring such authority ipso facto.

¹⁴ The Constitution (1879), L. R. 4 P. D. 39; the Prins Frederik (1820), 2 Dod. 451; the Parlement Beige, L. R. 4, P. D. 129 (1879), L. R. 5 P. D. 197 (1880).

¹⁵ The Constitution (1879), L. R. 4 P. D. 39.

¹⁶ Supra, note 14.

¹⁷ The Jassy (1906), P. 270; the Porto Alexandre, supra.

¹⁸ See infra p. 90.

¹⁹ Duke of Brunswick v. King of Hanover (1844), 6 Beav. 1; De Haber v. Queen of Portugal (1851), 17 Q. B. 196; Vavasseur v. Krupp (1878), 9 Ch. D. 351; Mighell v. Sultan of Johore [1894], 1 Q. B. 149.

²⁰ The Newbaitle (1885), L. R. 10 P. D. 33; South African Republic v. La Compagnie Franco-Beige (1898), 1 Ch. 190; U. S. S. R. v. Belaiew, 42 L. T. R. 21 (K. B. Div. 1925).

²¹ The Charkieh, supra; Mighell v. Sultan of Johore, supra.

²² The Cassius (1796), 2 Dali. 365; McFaddon i>. Schooner Exchange (1812), 7 Cranch, 116.

²³ The Attualita, 238 Fed. 909 (C. C. A. 4th, 1916).

²⁴ 197 Maes. 349, 83 N. E. 876 (1908).

²⁵ Johnson Lighterage Co. No. 24,231 Fed. 365 (D. N. J. 1916) (counsel for Russian Governmentappearing as amicus curiae); the Maipo, 252 Fed. 627 (S. D. N. Y. 1918) (suggestion filed by Chilean Charg6 d'Affaires) ; The Roseric, 254 Fed. 154 (D. N. J. 1918) (counsel forBritish Embassy appearing as amicus curiae); the Adriatic, 258 Fed. 902 (C. C. A. 3rd, 1919)(same procedure); the Carlo Poma, 259 Fed. 369 (C. C. A. 2nd, 1919) (suggestion by ItalianAmbassador); the Claveresk, 264 Fed. 276 (C. C. A. 2nd, 1920) (held the admission of asuggestion from the British Ambassador tobe solely within the discretion of the court.The question at issue, however, was not oneof immunity, but as to whether there had been abreach of charter-party). The Rogday, 279Fed. 130 (N. D. Cal. 1920), goes farther thanany other case. In an action in rent by theRussian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, itwas held proper for Boris Bakhmetieff,representative of the former Kerensky government,to file a suggestion with the court that the plaintiff was not the recognized governmentof Russia.

²⁶ See, e.g., the Maipo, 252 Fed. 627 (S. D. N. Y. 1918).

²⁷ A suggestion from counsel for the French Government appearing as amicus curiae wasrejected in the Florence H., 248 Fed. 1012 (S. D. N. Y. 1918). But the suggestion wascouched in unusual terms. Instead of claiming immunity, it argued that the court shouldrelinquish jurisdiction because of the diplomatic complications involved.

²⁸ 254 U. S. 522 (1921), annotated in 34 Harv. L. R. 773; 30 Yale L. J. 526.

²⁹ All the cases cited are ones in which the government or its authorized representativeappeared (the Sapphire (1870), 11 Wall. 164; the Santissima Trinidad (1822), 7 Wheat.283), or where the suggestion was made by the executive (the Cassius, supra; the Exchange,supra; the Pizarro, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,199; the Constitution, supra; the Parlement Beigesupra). Yet it fails to cite a single case in which the practice followed by the lower courthad been allowed, and it fails to note that in not a single one of the cases cited was it suggestedthat the method there followed excluded others.

³⁰ 255 U. S. 216 (1921).

³¹ Berizzi Bros. Co. v. S. S. Pesaro (1926), 271 U. S. 562.

³² 3 Wheat. 435, 446 (1818). “ It is admitted that a claim by a public minister . . . inbehalf of his sovereign would be good. But in making this admission it is not to be understoodthat it can be made in a court of justice, without the assent or sanction of the governmentin whose courts the cause is depending. That is a question of great importance, uponwhich this court expressly reserve their opinion.”

³³ The Sao Vicente (1922), 260 U. S. 151. This case has a curious history. The SaoVicente was libelled and a claim was entered by the Transportes Maritimos do Estado, whichset up immunity as a department of the Government of Portugal. The answer was verifiedby the Portuguese vice-consul. The lower court held this bad as a mere suggestion by anunauthorized official, failing to discuss the question whether the claimant itself could raisethe question. The Consul-General of Portugal then brought certiorari to the Supreme Court,which sustained the lower court as mentioned above. In 1923, after decree was rendered,the claimant presented a suggestion by the Portuguese Minister. This was again held insufficient,295 Fed. 829 (C. C. A. 3rd, 1924). As a final effort, the Portuguese Minister, byoriginal petition in the Supreme Court, sought a writ of prohibition against any further actionin the proceedings. The Supreme Court could see no reason for granting such extraordinaryrelief when there had been plenty of time to interpose immunity in the regularmanner. In re Transportes Maritimos do Estado (1924), 264 U. S. 105.

³⁴ 264 U. S. 90 (1924).

³⁵ “ Although an officer of the Turkish navy, he was performing no naval or military duty, and was serving upon a vessel not functioning in a naval or military capacity.”

³⁶ 13 P. (2d) 469 (E. D. N. Y. 1926)

³⁷ 8715 F. (2d) 711 (E. D. N. Y. 1926). The court calls the document filed by the Chargt d'Affaires a “ suggestion.” But it would appear to be much more than that from the text as printed in the report.

³⁸ 271 U. 8. 562 (1926).

³⁹ The question was presented in two cases which came before the Supreme Court. In onethe writ of error was dismissed for lack of a federal question (Transportes Maritimos doEstado, supra); in the other the court denied certiorari (Kunglig Jarnvagsstyrelsen v. Dexter & Carpenter, 280 U. S. 579).

⁴⁰ 97 N. J. Eq. 102; 127 Atl. 103 (1925).

⁴¹ 21 F. (2d) 180 (S. D. N. Y. 192). Note that this case was decided after the Supreme Court's decision in Ex parte Muir.

⁴² 278 S. W. 251 (Tex. 1925).

⁴³ 31 F. (2d) 199 (S. D. N. Y. 1929).

⁴⁴ 300 Fed. 891 (S. D. N. Y. 1924).

⁴⁵ 32 F. (2d) 195 (C. C. A. 2nd, 1929). Certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court, Oct.21, 1929. In Molina v. Comision Reguladora del Mercado de Henequin (1918), 91 N. J. L.382, 103 Atl. 397, a corporation owned by the State of Yucatan was sued. The defendantcalled attention to a letter from the Mexican Ambassador to the Secretary of State regardingits immunity. The court refused to consider the communication because not addressed toit. The State Department and the Mexican Ambassador had declined to intervene. Thecase turns, however, on the point that a political subdivision is not entitled to immunity.

⁴⁶ The rule was followed in Societa Commerciale Italians, di Navigazione v. Maru Navigation Co., 280 Fed. 334 (C. C. A. 4th, 1922), and inthe Secundus, supra.

⁴⁷ “ However the objection may be presented by the foreign sovereign, the court must give heed to it.” De Simone v. Transportes Maritimos do Estado (1922), 191 N. Y. Supp. 864, 199 App. Div. 602; Bradford v. Director General of Railroads of Mexico, 278 S. W. 251 (Tex. 1925).

⁴⁸ L. R. 4 P. D. 129 (1879), L. R. 5 P. D. 197 (1880).

⁴⁹ (1906), P. 270.

⁵⁰ 40 Times L. R. 601 (Court of Appeal, 1924).

⁵¹ The Messicano, 32 Times L. R. 519 (Prob., Div. & Adm. Div. 1916). Cf. the Crimdon,35 Times L. R. 81 (Prob., Div. & Adm. Div. 1918). Note also the Jupiter (No. 1), (1924) P.236, in which the U. S. S. R. appeared in the suit.

⁵² (1928), A. C. 433.

⁵³ 1922 Scots Law Times, 68 (Court of Sessions, 1921).

⁵⁴ “ Die Entscheidung liegt in der Hand des Gerichts, an eine elwaige Regierungserkldrungwurde es nicht gebunden sein.” 1 Stein-Jonas, Zivilprozessordnung, 24 (14th ed. 1928):“ Nach deutschen Slaats- und Verwailungsrecht hat grundstilzlich jede Behdrde fiber alle Fragen,die fur ihre Entscheidung von Bedeutung öind, selbstandig zu entscheiden, auch wenn dieseFragen aus einem anderen Zuständigkeitsgebiet stammen, ohne an die Aujfassung der in demanderen Gebiet zusldndigen Behdrde gebunden zu sein. . . . Auch das Auswdrtige Ami vertrittdiese Meinung und erkldrt, zu keiner Zeit sei der Standpunkt vertreten warden, dass seine Meinungfurdie Urleilsfindungeines deutschen Gerichts bindend sei.” Oberlandesgericht of Darmstadt,Dec. 20, 1926, supra.

⁵⁵ An example of this procedure is the famous Hellfeld case, Gerichtshof zur Entscheidungder Kompetenzkonflikte, 5 this Journal, 1911, 490. See also decision of the same court,June 27,1925, Juristische Wochenschrifl, 1926, 402, where the Bulgarian State, whose creditswere attached, refused to avail itself of its right of objection, and the question of competenceof the lower court was brought up by the Prussian Ministerprasident.

⁵⁶ Gerichtshof zur Entscheidung der Kompetenzkonflikte, May 29, 1920, Jurislische Wochenschrift, 1921, 772; same court Dec. 4, 1920, Juristische Wochenschrifl, 1921, 1478.

⁵⁷ Gerichts. zur Entsch. der Komp., March 12, 1921, Juristische Wochenschr., 1921, 1480.

⁵⁸ Oberlandesgericht of Breslau, Oct. 29, 1921, 42 Rechtsprechung der Oberlandesgerichte, 44.

⁵⁹ S. B. v. Belgian Railway Fiskus, Reichsgericht, Dec. 12, 1905, 62 Entscheidungen des Reichsgerichls in Zivilsachen, 165.

⁶⁰ S. G. S. v. U. S. Shipping Board, Dec. 10,1921,103 Entscheidungen des Reichsgerichls in Zivilsachen, 274.

⁶¹ See in support of this Allen, Position of Foreign States before German Courts (1928),passim; Mendelsohn-Bartholdy, “ Die Gerichtsbarkeit über fremde Staaten,” 55 JuristischeWochenschrifl, 2405; Loening, Die Gerichtsbarkeit uber Fremde Staaten und Souveräne (1903),Festgabef. Fitting, 169 (an older study much cited in Germany).

⁶² Saabrok v. Société Maritime Auxilliare de Transports, Cour d'Appel de Rennes, June29,1918,18 Rev. de Droit Int. Privi, 743. Similarly in the Campos v. Compagnie des Chargeurs Réinis;, Trib. de Commerce de Havre, May 9, 1919, 46 Journal du Droit Int. 747, thecaptain of a Brazilian ship was permitted to intervene and object against an attachment onthe ground of immunity.

⁶³ Esnault-Pelterie v. A. V. Roe Co., Ltd., Trib. Civ. Seine, April 1, 1925, 52 Journ. du Droit Int. 702.

⁶⁴ The Avensdaw, Trib. de Commerce Rouen, Jan. 20,1922, 34 Rev. Int. du Droit Maritime, 1074.

⁶⁵ Ville de Geneve v. Consorts de Cibry, Cour d'Appel de Paris, June 19, 1894, Dalloz(1894) II, 513; Credit Poncier d'Algéie et de Tunisie v. Département d'Antiquoia, Trib.Civ. Seine, Déc. 11, 1922, 18 Rev. de Droit Int. Privi, 748. See, also, Société le Gostorg v.Association France-Export, Court of Cassation, Feb. 19,1929,24 Rev. de Droit Int. Privi, 266.

⁶⁶ Carretier v. Chemin de Fer d'Alsace Lorraine, Cassation, May 5; 1885, Dalloz (1885), I, 341, 13 Journal du Droit Int. Privé, 83.

⁶⁷ The Pangim, July 12, 1923, 4 Rev. de Droit Maritime Comp. 213. The Portuguese department here involved has figured prominently in the American jurisprudence on the subject. See supra, note 33.

⁶⁸ Etat Portugais v. Sauvage, Cour d'Appel de Bruxelles, June 27, 1921, Pasicrisie Beige 1921, 53.

⁶⁹ The Tchitchirine, Trib. Mixte d'Alexandrie, Nov. 8, 1927. See also National NavigationCo. v. Tavoulardis et Cie., 19 Gazette des Tribunaux Mixtes, 251; Borg v. CaisseNationale d'Epargne Frangaise, Trib. Civil d'Alexandrie, Nov. 29, 1924, 16 Gazette desTribunaux Mixtes, 123.

⁷⁰ Hall v. Administration des Port et Phares, Court of Appeal of Alexandria, Nov. 24,1920, 11 Gazette des Tribunaux, 23.

⁷¹ For typical Italian decisions see Elmilick v. Bey of Tunis, Court of Lucca, April 2,1886,14 Journal du Droit Int. Privé, 50; Nobili v. Charles I of Austria, Cassation, March 11,1921,48 Journal du Droit Int. Privé, 626; French Government v. Serra, Court of Appeal of Genova,May 4, 1925, 17 Rivista di Dir. Int. 540; Rumanian State v. Trutta, Cassation, March13, 1926, 18 Rivista di Dir. Int. 252; Greek State v. Capone, Court of Appeal of Naples, July16, 1926, 19 Rivista di Dir. Ini. 102.

⁷² Russian Commercial Representation v. Tessini, Cassation, June 12, 1925, 18 Rivista di Dir. Int. 249.

⁷³ U. S. Shipping Board v. Consorzio Importazione Carboni Fossili, Court of Appeals ofGenova, April 24, 1925, 12 Rev. de Droit Maritime Comp. 350; Societa Riunite di Assicurazioniv. U. S. Shipping Board, Court of Appeals of Naples, Dec. 2, 1925, Monitore dei Tribunali,1926, 336.

⁷⁴ Decision of the Supreme Court, Oct. 29, 1925, Gazeta Sadowa Warszawska, 1926, 146,1 Zeit.fiir Ostrecht, 272 (involving Italian militaryattache).

⁷⁵ Royal Hungarian Supreme Court, Aug. 1,1916,1 Zeit.fiir Ostrecht, 297 (Turkish Fiskus).

⁷⁶ Decision of the Supreme Court, Oct. 12,1920,1 Zeit.fiir Ostrecht, 252 (Austrian Railway Administration).

⁷⁷ Ministdre des finances autrichien v. Dreyfus, Trib. Fédéral, March 13, 1918, 15 Rev. de Droit Int. Privi, 172 (immunity denied).

⁷⁸ Public Prosecutor for the Treasury v. U. S. Shipping Board, Court of Appeal of Lisbon, Feb. 13, 1926, 11 Gazeta Judicial Porta Delgada, No. 170 (2nd ser.) 68 (immunity denied).

⁷⁹ Brown v. S. S. Indochine (1923), 21 Ex. Ct. of Canada 406.

⁸⁰ Wadsworth v. Queen of Spain (1851), 17 Q. B. 215.

⁸¹ 237 N. Y. 150, 142 N. E. 569 (1923).

⁸² 257 U. S. 419 (1921).

⁸³ In the Western Maid, the ship had been formerly owned by the United States, but in the Tervaele, 38 Times L. R. 825 (Court of Appeal, 1922), which reached the same result, a foreign government had been the former owner.

⁸⁴ 8 F. (2d) 287 (S. D. N. Y. 1924).

⁸⁵ Thus the New York Court of Appeals, “ To suea sovereign state is to insult it in a mannerwhich it may treat with silent contempt. Itis not bound to come into our courts andplead its immunity. It is liable to suit only when its consent is duly given.” Nankivel v.Omsk All-Russian Government (1923), 237 N.Y. 150, 142 N. E. 569. And note the casesin which it is held that a default judgment against a sovereign who fails to appear is void.De Haber v. Queen of Portugal, supra; Porto Rico v. Rosaly y Castillo (1913), 227 U. S.270.

⁸⁶ The Claveresk, supra; 34 Harv. L. Rev. 773.

⁸⁷ The immunity from suit of an unrecognized government was upheld in Wulfsohn v.R. S. F. S. R. (1923), 234 N. Y. 372, 138 N. E. 24, and in Nankivel v. Omsk All-RussianGovernment, supra. A fortiori, the same should be true of a government with whomdiplomatic relations have been suspended. An enemy government has been allowed immunityin Germany. Oberlandesgericht of Dresden, April 26, 1915, 31 Reehtsprechung derOberlandesgerichte, 175.

⁸⁸ Certiorari was denied in the Swedish Railway Administration case. (1929) 280 U. S. 79.