Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














International - From: 1900 To: 1929

This page lists 31 cases, and was prepared on 08 August 2015.

 
Re O'Hara [1900] 2 IR 232
1900

FitzGibbon LJ
International, Children
(Ireland) FitzGibbon LJ SAID: "In exercising the jurisdiction to control or to ignore the parental right the court must act cautiously, not as if it were a private person acting with regard to his own child, and acting in opposition to the parent only when judicially satisfied that the welfare of the child requires that the parental right should be suspended or superseded."
1 Citers


 
Browne -v- Ryan [1901] 2 IR 653
1901


International, Equity
(Ireland - Court of Appeal) A farmer mortgaged his holding to secure £200 and interest; and, as part of the mortgage transaction, it was stipulated that the mortgagor should sell his holding within twelve months, employ the mortgagee as the auctioneer at a certain commission, and pay him the like commission if the conduct of the sale was given to any one else. Held: The stipulation had no effect after redemption.
1 Citers


 
Davidsson -v- Hill [1901] 2 KB 606; (1901) 70 LJKB 788; (1901) 85 LT 118; (1901) 49 WR 630; (1901) 9 Asp MLC 223
1901
CA
Kennedy and Phillimore LJJ
International, Torts - Other
Ships collided at sea. The negligent crew were aboard the British ship. A crew member on the Norwegian ship died in the collision, and his family sued here. Held: The family had a right of action against the defendant owners of the British ship. The existence of a cause of action in favour of dependants of a person negligently killed was regarded as a universal principle which should be treated as part of the international law maritime.
Fatal Accidents Act 1846 - Fatal Accidents Act 1864
1 Citers


 
Janson -v- Driefontein Consolidated Mines [1902] AC 484
1902

Lord Macnaghten
International
Lord MacNaghten: "… the law recognises a state of peace and a state of war, but .. it knows nothing of an intermediate state which is neither the one thing nor the other – neither peace nor war."
1 Citers


 
Illinois Central Railroad Co -v- McKendree (1906) 203 US 514
1906

Day J
International, Constitutional
(US Supreme Court) An order of the Secretary of Agriculture purporting to fix a quarantine line under the Cattle Contagious Disease Act (1903), which applied in terms to all shipments, whether interstate or intrastate, was void, notwithstanding that the same line was fixed as to intrastate shipments by legislation of the state through which it passed. Day J said: "It is urged by the government that it was not the intention of the Secretary to make provision for intrastate commerce, as the recital of the order shows an intention to adopt the state line, when the state by its legislature has passed the necessary laws to enforce the same completely and strictly. But the order in terms applies alike to interstate and intrastate commerce. . . . We do not say that the state line might not be adopted in a proper case, in the exercise of federal authority, if limited in its effect to interstate commerce coming from below the line, but that is not the present order, and we must deal with it as we find it. Nor have we the power to so limit the Secretary's order as to make it apply only to interstate commerce, which it is urged is all that is here involved. For aught that appears upon the face of the order, the Secretary intended it to apply to all commerce, and whether he would have made such an order, if strictly limited to interstate commerce, we have no means of knowing. The order is in terms single, and indivisible."
1 Citers


 
The Jassy [1906] P 270
1906


International
The plaintiff took process by way of arrest in a damages action in rem against a vessel which was the property of a foreign state. Held: No waiver of the state's privilege could be assumed even though agents of the state, under a misapprehension, and in order to procure the release of the vessel, had given an undertaking to put in bail and had entered an absolute appearance. The action was dismissed.
1 Citers


 
The Employers' Liability Cases (1908) 207 US 463
1908

White J
International, Constitutional
(US Supreme Court) The court heard together two appeals regarding the range of federal jurisdiction to legislate for the regulation of interstate commerce. The true construction of the federal statute whose constitutionality was in issue was controversial. Held: (Majority) The statute was unconstitutional. White J said: "Of course, if it can be lawfully done, our duty is to construe the statute so as to render it constitutional. But this does not imply, if the text of an act is unambiguous, that it may be rewritten to accomplish that purpose. Equally clear is it, generally speaking, that where a statute contains provisions which are constitutional and ethers which are not, effect may be given to the legal provisions by separating them from the illegal. But this applies only to a case where the provisions are separable and not dependent one upon the other, and does not support the contention that that which is indivisible may be divided. Moreover, even in a case where legal provisions may be severed from those which are illegal, in order to save the rule applies only where is is plain that Congress would have enacted the legislation with the unconsitutional provisions eliminated. All these principles are so clearly settled as not to be open to controversy. They were all, after a full review of the authorities, restated and reapplied in a recent case. Illinois Central Railroad v. McKendree, 203 U.S. 514, and authorities cited there."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Schloendorff -v- Society of New York Hospital; 1913 - (1914) 105 NE 92; (1914) 211 NY 125; (1914) 52 LRANS 505
 
In re Republic of Bolivia Exploration Syndicate Ltd [1914] 1 Ch 139
1914

Astbury J
International, Jurisdiction
"Even if it were conceivable that a diplomatic agent can waive his privilege, which is really the privilege of his sovereign, he can only do so intentionally, with full knowledge of his rights, and with the sanction of his sovereign or legation."
Diplomatic Privileges Act 1708
1 Citers



 
 Gross -v- Seligman; 1914 - 212 F 930 (1914)

 
 MacPherson -v- Buick Motor Co; 1916 - (1916) 217 NY 382

 
 International News Service -v- Associated Press; 1918 - [1918] 248 US 215

 
 Arkadelphia Milling -v- St Louis Southwestern Railway; 1918 - (1918) 249 US 134

 
 Oetjen -v- Central Leather Co; 1918 - [1918] 246 US 297
 
Aksionairnoye Obschestvo A M Luther -v- James Sagor & Co [1921] 3 KB 532
1921
CA
Scrutton LJ
Commercial, International
A court is required to recognise a foreign state's dealings with private proprietary rights within its jurisdiction. An English court will recognise the compulsory acquisition law of a foreign state and will recognise the change of title to property which has come under the control of the foreign state and will recognise the consequences of that change of title. Scrutton LJ said: 'The courts in questions whether a particular person or institution is a sovereign must be guided only by the statement of the sovereign on whose behalf they exercise jurisdiction.'
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Murphy -v- The County Council of Wexford [1921] 2 Ir R 230
1921


Damages, International
(Eire)
1 Citers


 
Jacob & Youngs Inc -v- Kent (1921) 230 NY 239
1921

Cardoza J
Damages, Construction, International
Court of Appeals of New York. A building contract specified that the plumbing should use a particular type of piping. In fact the builder used a different type of piping. Cardozo J. stated: "In the circumstances of this case, we think the measure of the allowance is not the cost of replacement, which would be great, but the difference in value, which would be either nominal or nothing . . It is true that in most cases the cost of replacement is the measure . . The owner is entitled to the money which will permit him to complete, unless the cost of completion is grossly and unfairly out of proportion to the good to be obtained. When that is true, the measure is the difference in value. Specifications call, let us say, for a foundation built of granite quarried in Vermont. On the completion of the building, the owner learns that through the blunder of a subcontractor part of the foundation has been built of granite of the same quality quarried in New Hampshire. The measure of allowance is not the cost of reconstruction. "There may be omissions of that which could not afterwards be supplied exactly as called for by the contract without taking down the building to its foundations, and at the same time the omission may not affect the value of the building for use or otherwise, except so slightly as to be hardly appreciable."
1 Citers


 
United Zinc & Chemical Co -v- Britt (1922) 258 U S 268
1922

Holmes J
Negligence, International
There was no evidence of children being in the habit of going near the poisoned pool at issue. Speaking of trespassers, Holmes J said "the owner of the land would have owed no duty to remove even hidden danger; it would have been entitled to assume that they would obey the law and not trespass"
1 Citers


 
King of the Hellenes -v- Brostrom (1923) 16 LlLRep 190
1923

Rowlatt J
International, Taxes Management
Rowlatt J said: "It is perfectly elementary that a foreign government cannot come here -- nor will the courts of other countries allow our government to go there -- and sue a person found in that jurisdiction for taxes levied and which he is declared to be liable to by the country to which he belongs."
1 Citers


 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Affairs, Ex parte O'Brien [1923] 2 KB 361
1923
CA
Bankes, Scrutton, Atkin LJJ
International, Litigation Practice
Mr O'Brien had been arrested in London under regulation 14B of the Restoration of Order in Ireland Regulations 1920 and deported to Ireland there to be interned until further order. A writ of habeas corpus was sought as against the governor of Mountjoy prison. Held: The court accepted the affidavit evidence of the Home Secretary to the effect that Mr O'Brien was under the control of the governor that the governor was an official of the Irish Free State and not subject to the orders or directions of the Home Secretary or the British government. However, the writ of habeas corpus should issue. This was because the arrangements which existed between the Irish Free State and the United Kingdom provided grounds for believing that the Home Secretary could obtain the return of Mr O'Brien.
A statement had been made in the House of Commons on 19 March 1923 that the Irish Free State had given the British government a number of undertakings, one of which was to the effect that if it was decided that any person should not have been deported he would be released. There was therefore a reasonable prospect that the Home Secretary could exert sufficient control over the custody of Mr O'Brien to justify the issue of the writ.
Scrutton LJ said that if the court is satisfied that the body whose production is asked is not in the custody, power or control of the person to whom it is sought to address the writ, a writ of habeas corpus is not the proper remedy.
1 Citers


 
Duff Development Company Limited -v- Government of Kelantan [1924] AC 797
1924
HL
Lord Cave
International
In a case of any uncertainty as to the diplomatic status of a defendant, a Secretary of State should be asked for the necessary information. The House considered a certificate of recognition provided for the defendant: "It is the duty of the Court to accept the statement of the Secretary of state thus clearly and positively made as conclusive upon the point." (Lord Cave) (majority decision).
1 Citers



 
 Case of the Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions; PICJ 1924 - (1924) PCIJ Rep Series A, No. 2
 
Duff Development Co -v- Kelantan Government [1924] AC 797; [1924] All ER 1
1924
HL
Lord Sumner, Lord Cave
International
Lord Sumner suggested that in the absence of a clear statement of the position from the Government, the court might be entitled to decide whether a defendat had the benefit of state immunity for itself on the basis of the evidence before it.
A foreign state cannot be impleaded in the English courts without its consent.
Lord Cave said that as regards state immunity: "It is the duty of the Court to accept the statement of the Secretary of state thus clearly and positively made as conclusive upon the point."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Whitney -v- California (1927) 274 US 357
1927

Brandeis J
International, Media
(United States) Brandeis J considered that the risk of mis-reporting of court proceedings was in fact a reason for more court reporting: "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."
1 Citers



 
 Jurisdiction of the Courts of Danzig Case (the Beamtenabkommen); ICJ 1928 - (1928) PCIJ Rep Series B No. 15
 
Re Visser [1928] Ch 877
1928
ChD
Tomlin J
Taxes Management, International
English law generally does not permit either the direct or indirect enforcement of foreign revenue laws.
1 Citers


 
Princess Olga -v- Weisz [1929] 1KB718
1929


International
Recovery was sought of items wher the possessor claimed title through the Soviet State. Held: The claim failed. the court recognised that the Soviet Republic had acquired good title to the movables in question (as well as possession of them), so as to be able to convey ownership of them to the defendants. A foreign state can bring here proceedings which qualify as patrimonial claims.
1 Citers


 
Princess Paley Olga -v- Wiesz [1929] 1 KB 718
1929
CA
Scrutton and Sankey LJJ
International
The Court considered a seizure of property from the plaintiff which had then been adopted by the Russian Government and a later confiscation decree. Held The decree was effective to vest the goods in the Russian authorities and the adopted seizure was an act of state the validity of which could not be questioned.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Hoeppner v Dunkirk Printing 227 NYAD 130 (1929)
1929


International, Defamation
It was held to be defamatory to impute incompetence to a football coach: "While the articles complained of fail to charge the plaintiff with the commission of any crime, or to attack his moral character, the fair inference to be drawn from the language used is that the plaintiff is an inefficient coach, and has failed to properly instruct the team in modern play and in the technique of the game, so that they could successfully meet and compete with other teams in their class…The law recognises one's right to live and that the majority of people are compelled to earn a living."
1 Citers


 
Princess Paley Olga -v- Weisz [1929] 1 KB 718
1929


International
English courts will refrain from examining the validity of foreign executive action relating to matters within the territorial jurisdiction of the foreign state.
1 Citers


 
Cheney Brothers -v- Doris Silk Corporation [1929] 35 F 2d 279
1929


International

1 Citers


 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.