Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Extra-Territorial Confiscations

  • Chapter
Confiscation in Private International Law

  • 60 Accesses

Abstract

In contrast to the conceptions of the validity of territorial confiscations those concerning the validity of extra-territorial confiscations show a greater unanimity. Thus the validity of extra-territorial confiscations is with few exceptions1 rejected by the case law. This is not to be wondered at. When a government aims at extending such a drastic violation of the principle of protection of private property beyond its frontiers, the foreign forum will, by nature as it were, oppose it. For, since it is not in the power of the confiscating government actually to execute a confiscatory measure also outside its frontiers, it is up to the foreign court to decide whether or not it will concur in the confiscatory measure. It is obvious that such concurrence is more than a mere recognition. What is claimed here, is very often called enforcement2. This is evident from the various ways in which extra-territorial validity is put in issue1. Thus it may happen that the confiscating government puts in a claim for certain goods which in its opinion are covered by the confiscation. To do this, however, the government requires the active co-operation of the court of the forum where such property is situated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Lithuania: decision of December 7, /21, 1931, Z.f.O. 1933, 818, based on interpretation of peace treaty, cf. infra, 90; Georgia: the decision of the People’s Court of Batoum October 1922, Clunet 1923, 663, concerning the ships Georges and Edwich is explained by the political relation between Soviet Russia and Georgia; it is not, as Ripert supposes in his note, solely based on the recognition of Soviet Russia by Georgia; Tunis: Rey c. Lecouturier, Trib. civil of Tunis 11–5-1907, S. 1908.2.115; explicable by the special constitutional relation to France; U.S.A.: the case law based on the Litvinov Assignment, cf. infra, 91 ff. In all cases excepting the Tunesian one (Carthusian liqueur) the validity of Soviet Russian measures was involved. Moreover some Dutch decisions pertaining to Kommissarische Verwaltung are to be mentioned: In Manes. v. Kommissarische Verwalter, Cantonal Court of Hilversum 13–12-1938, N.J. 1939 No. 51, Ann. Dig. Suppl. Vol., 20 and Firm of Komotau v. Kommissarische Verwalter, Cantonal Court of The Hague 14–6-1939, N.J. 1939 No. 764, Ann. Dig. Suppl. Vol., 21, the real nature of this Verwaltung was not recognized, the competence of the Verwalter in the Netherlands being taken for granted. The Italian decision re Eulenberg, District Court Milan 4–6-1940, Modern L.R. 1942/1943, 167 is accounted for by the political relations. Cf. also the cases in which a decision was founded on jurisdictional immunity, supra, 36 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  2. E.g. Re, 49.

    Google Scholar 

  3. A very detailed survey is given by Seidl-Hohenveldern, 55.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Infra, 81 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Infra, 84.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Infra, 85 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Infra, 87.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Infra, 87, 88.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Infra, 88.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Infra, 89 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ann. Dig. 1923–1924, 44, 37 A.L.R. 712, Clunet 1925, 446.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ann. Dig. 1925–1926, 57.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Clunet 1925, 451.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Clunet 1928, 789.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ann. Dig. 1929–1930, 38.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Johnson v. Briggs (anti-Jewish measure, non-recognition of the annexation of Austria), Ann. Dig. 1938–1940, 87; Amstelbank N.V. v. Guaranty Trust Cy of New York, Ann. Dig. 1941–1942, 584 (anti-Jewish measure, non-recognition of the occupation of the Netherlands); Kon. Lederfabriek “Oisterwijk” N.V. v. Chase National Bank of City of New York, Ann. Dig. 1941–1942, 588 (the same).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ann. Dig. 1941–1942, 70.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ann. Dig. 1941–1942, 70.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ann. Dig. 1941–1942, 86.

    Google Scholar 

  20. A.J.I.L. 1949, 380, Ann. Dig. 1948, 45; to the same effect Latvian State Cargo and Passenger Line v. U.S., A.J.I.L. 1954, 332.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ann. Dig. 1943–1945, 29.

    Google Scholar 

  22. A.J.I.L. 1948, 231, Ann. Dig. 1947, 6.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ann. Dig. 1941–1942, 91 (Esthonian confiscation).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Supra, 59 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Bessel c. Société des auteurs et compositeurs dramatiques, Trib. civil de la Seine 14–2-1931, Clunet 1932, 114.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Infra, 112.

    Google Scholar 

  27. E.g. Crédit National Industriel c. Crédit Lyonnais, Cour d’Appel of Paris 18–2-1926, Clunet 1927, 1061, cf. infra, 113.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Aronsfrau c. Gimpel, Cour d’Appel of Paris 9–1-1939, R.C.D.I.P. 1939, 300; X. c. Lévit et Walter, Trib. comm. de la Seine 23–6-1939, Ann. Dig. Suppl. Vol., 25 and Jellinek c. Levy, Trib. comm. de la Seine 18–1-1940, Gaz. du Palais 7–3-1940, Ann. Dig. Suppl. Vol., 24.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Decision of 9–6-1938 re Eismann c. Melzer, J. des Trib. 54, 3558, Belg. Jud. 1938, 563.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Decision Brussels District Court 17–11-1938, Bulletin vol. 41, 262, re Schönberg c. Sarna and decision of 26–10-1939, Bulletin vol. 42, 57, J. des Trib. 54, 3589 (anti-Jewish measures); re Compagnie Belgo-Lithuanienne d’Electricité, Brussels Court of Appeal 25–6-1947, Clunet 1950, 864 (Lithuanian nationalization). In the same way the Antwerp District Court applied the principle of public policy in Urrutia & Amollobieta c. Martiarena, decision of 18–2-1937, Revue de dr.i.et de leg. comp. 1938, 331; in the appeal case, however, this judgment was reversed, cf. supra, 42.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Rey et Dr Levy c. Lecouturier, Court of Appeal of Hamburg 5–11-1907, Revue Darras 1907, 949; Supreme Court of Leipzig 29–5-1908, Entsch. Rg. 69, 1, Revue Darras 1908, 815; this result was preceded by the decision of the Hamburg District Court of 4–5-1905, re Rey et Dr Levy c. Lecouturier, Revue Darras 1907, 950, which preliminarily prohibited Abbé Rey (the priest under whose name the trade-mark was registered) to use the trade-mark; and by Rey et Dr Levy c. Lecouturier, Hamburg District Court 23–2-1906, Revue Darras 1907, 415, from which a kind of truce emerged. Rey was not allowed to use the trade-mark, nor was the liquidator. In Rey et Dr Levy c. Lecouturier, Hamburg District Court 11–12-1908, Revue Darras 1909, 314, extra-territorial effect was rejected since the present legislation was held a loi de police et d’exception.

    Google Scholar 

  32. The Hague District Court 9–3-1933, N.J. 1933, 1662, Ann. Dig. 1933–1934, 80; The Hague Court of Appeal 3–6-1937, N.J. 1937, 1675, Ann. Dig. 1935–1937, 204.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Amsterdam District Court 11–6-1940, N.J. 1940, 1607, Ann. Dig. Suppl. Vol., 21; Amsterdam Court of Appeal 4–11-1942, N.J. 1943, 687, Ann. Dig. Suppl. Vol., 21.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Arnhem Court of Appeal 11–3-1952, N.J. 1952, 554; the decision in the first instance, Arnhem District Court 22–3-1951, N.J. 1951, 611, did not engage this argument, but rejected extra-territorial effect because the present debt was beyond the reach of the nationalization.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Haarlem District Court 24–7-1937, N.J. 1937, 863, Ann. Dig. 1935–1937, 203.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Hunzedal v. Smit, Amsterdam District Court 3–1-1940, N.J. 1940, 1002, Ann. Dig. Suppl. Vol., 33; however cf. supra, 78.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Rumanian Supreme Court 13–2-1929, Z.f.O. 1930, 673; 5–12-1932, Clunet 1935, 718 (Soviet Russian nationalization).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Mentioned in the appeal case Court of Western Denmark 12–5-1952, Clunet 1954, 480, cf. infra, 153 (Czech nationalization).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Rey c. Jaccard, Supreme Court 13–2-1906, R.O. 32 I 148, Revue Darras 1907, 282; in Compagnie Fermière de la Grande Chartreuse c. Rey, Supreme Court 11–7-1913, R.O. 39 III 640, the character of the measure as a loi de police et d’exception was also pointed to.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Supreme Court 10–12-1924, R.O. 50 II 507, Clunet 1925, 488.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Supreme Court 13–7-1925, R.O. 51 II 259, Clunet 1926, 1110.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Geneva District Court 31–10-1917 (re Société de Sosnowice), Revue Darr as 1918, 190 (German war-measure); Bankhaus Thorsch g. Thorsch, District Court of Zürich 7–12-1938, Bulletin vol. 40, 251, Court of Appeal Zürich 1–3-1939, Bulletin vol. 42, 87, Z.A.I.P. 1951, 601; Böhmische Unionbank g. Heynau, Supreme Court 22–12-1942, R.O. 68 II 377; Court of Appeal of Bern 7–11-1944, Z.A.I.P. 1951, 603 (the last four decisions concern Kommissarische Verwaltung).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Clunet 1925, 451; final decision Clunet 1925, 1070, Ann. Dig. 1925–1926, 54.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Ann. Dig. 1933–1934, 65; although the decision in Johnson v. Briggs, Ann. Dig. 1938–1940, 87, was chiefly based on the non-recognition of the annexation of Austria by Germany, all the same the principle of public policy was operated with in this case.

    Google Scholar 

  45. A.J.I.L. 1948, 739, 1949, 814, Ann. Dig. 1948, 13.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Ann. Dig. 1941–1942, 147.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Ann. Dig. 1947, 15, A.J.I.L. 1948, 231.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Rey c.s. c. Fouyer, Brussels Commercial Court 13–2-1907, Revue Darras 1907, 273 and Brussels Court of Appeal 20–5-1910, Revue Darras 1911, 732.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Rey c. Lecouturier, Supreme Court 10–5-1907, Clunet 1907, 1171 and Rey c. La Junte Commerciale de Rio, Court of Appeal of Rio de Janeiro 14–5-1907, Clunet 1908, 579.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Rey c. Lecouturier, The Hague Court of Appeal 28–10-1907, W. 8615, Revue Darras 1908, 313; Supreme Court 5–3-1908, W. 8691, Revue Darras 1908, 843.

    Google Scholar 

  51. British Investors Banking Cy c. Gouvernement Grec, Trib. civil of Le Havre (Réf.), 3–4-1935, Clunet 1935, 940, R.C.D.I.P. 1935, 408.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Lecouturier v. Rey [1910] A.C. 262, Revue Darras 1910, 914; in a lower instance also the argument of unfair competition had been used [1908] 2 Ch. 715, Revue Darras 1908, 270; in the first instance the claim of the Carthusian Congregation had been dismissed, Revue Darras 1908, 270. Earlier decisions concerning the exclusion of penal law: Folliott v. Ogden (1789) 3 T.R. 726; Wolff v. Oxholm (1817) 6 M. & S. 92 (cit. Dicey, 18).

    Google Scholar 

  53. (1946) 79 Ll.L.L.R. 245, Brit. Yearb. 1946, 384 and A/S. Tallina Laevauhisus v. Estonian State S.S. Line (1947) 80 Ll.L.L.R. 99, Brit. Yearb. 1947, 416.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Banco de Vizcaya v. Don Alfonso de Borbon y Austria [1935] 1 K.B. 140.

    Google Scholar 

  55. [1947] 1 Ch. 629; to the same effect Novello & Co v. Hinrichsen Edition Ltd. [1951] Ch. 595, [1951] Ch. 1026, cf. J. G. Fleming in I.L.Q. 1951, 377 and M. Saporta in Clunet 1951, 1120.

    Google Scholar 

  56. (1946) 79 Ll.L.L.R. 245, (1947) 80 Ll.L.L.R. 99.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Estonian State Cargo and Passenger S.S. Line v. Proceeds of the Steamship Elise and Messrs Laane and Baltser, Brit. Yearb. 1949, 427, A.J.I.L. 1949, 816 and Messrs Laane and Baltser v. Estonian State Cargo and Passenger S.S. Line, Brit. Yearb. 1953, 512, A.J.I.L. 1950, 201.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Alfonso di Borbone v. Credito Italiano and Banco de Vizcaya, District Court of Rome 30–8-1933, Court of Appeal of Rome 5–6-1934, Ann. Dig. 1935–1937, 198; Alphonso XIII v. Banco commerciale italiana et Banco Urquijo, District Court of Milan 17–1-1935, Clunet 1935, 1056.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Baglin v. Cusenier, Revue Darras 1907, 972 (decision of Circuit Court of New-York); 221 U.S. 580 (1911); the English and the American decisions have influenced each other: in Lecouturier v. Rey [1908] 2 Ch. 715, the American decision Revue Darras 1907, 972 was cited with approval; so was done in Baglin v. Cusenier, 221 U.S. 580 (1911) with the English decision Lecouturier v. Rey [1910] A.C. 262.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Lecouturier v. Rey, Court of Buenos Ayres 23–12-1905, Revue Darras 1907, 612; mention was made of a loi politico-sociale.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Supra, 85.

    Google Scholar 

  62. The Netherlands: Scheepvaart en Steenkolen Mij v. Schneider, Court of Appeal of The Hague 8–11-1946, N.J. 1947, No. 31, Ann. Dig. 1946, 17; in this case the decision of the Rotterdam District Court of 22–12-1943, which accepted the competence of the Verwalter on the ground of Reichskommissar Seyss Inquardt’s decree nr 179 dated 17–10-1940, was reversed. Switzerland: Court of Appeal of Zürich 11–11-1942, Z.A J.P. 1951, 602, Schweiz. Jahrb. für intern. R. 1944, 210, 234 (Kommissarische Verwaltung).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Ann. Dig. 1935–1937, 195 (Spanish requisition).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Supra 59 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Supra 60; cf. also U.S. v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203 (1942).

    Google Scholar 

  66. [1927] P. 122, [1927] P. 250.

    Google Scholar 

  67. [1923] 2 K.B. 630, [1925] A.C. 112.

    Google Scholar 

  68. [1923] 2 K.B. 682, [1925] A.C. 150.

    Google Scholar 

  69. [1947] 1 Ch. 629.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Manes v. Van Düren, Arnhem Cantonal Court 19–12-1938, N.J. 1939, Nr 16, Ann. Dig. Suppl. Vol., 20.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Moscow Fire Insurance Co v. The Bank of New York, Ann. Dig. 1938–1940, 141.

    Google Scholar 

  72. [1927] P. 122, [1927] P. 250.

    Google Scholar 

  73. O.G.H. 10–3-1948, Z.A.I.P. 1949, 479, J.Bl. 1949, 70, re National Soz. Lehrerbund (German measures); Verwaltungsgerichtshof 25–1-1950, Clunet 1951, 624; Verwaltungsgerichtshof 2–2-1950, Clunet 1950, 732, J.Bl. 1950, 192, re Law No. 5 of the Allied Control Council.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Anti-Jewish measures: Eisner v. Nilwa, Commercial and Admiralty Court 17–2-

    Google Scholar 

  75. 1939, Clunet 1954, 492, Z.A.I.P. 1941–42, 822, Bulletin vol. 41, 263; Östl. Landgericht 11–5-1939, Z.A.I.P. 1941–42, 823, Bulletin vol. 41, 263.

    Google Scholar 

  76. First Russian Insurance Cy v. London & Lancashire Ins. Cy. [1928] 1 Ch. 922; The El Condado (1939) 63 Ll.L.L.R. 83, (1939) 63 Ll.L.L.R. 331.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Germany v. Van der Hoeven, Utrecht District Court 31–5-1922, W. 10935, N.J. 1922, 1110; Amsterdam Court of Appeal 3–11-1925, W. 11440, Ann. Dig. 1925–1926, 145: no German seizure of goods within Dutch territory; to the same effect Amsterdan Court of Appeal 7–10-1921, N.J. 1922, 1268; Bohm v. Hozemann, Rotterdam District Court 13–1–1939, Bulletin vol. 41, 263 (Kommissarische Verwaltung); Anninger v. De Monchy, Rotterdam District Court 11–10-1939, N.J. 1940, No. 168, Ann. Dig. Suppl. Vol., 21 (Kommissarische Verwaltung).

    Google Scholar 

  78. Rosa Catana c. Potocki, Trib. civil de la Seine 7–5-1873, Clunet 1875, 20: the ukase from the Czar ordering guardianship over Count Potocki was not recognized in France.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Soviet Russian nationalization: Stockholms Enskilda Bank v. Amilakvari, Supreme Court 12–11-1938, Ann. Dig. Suppl. Vol., 107; Azov-Don-Bank, Supreme Court 19–10-1945, Z.A.I.P. 1949–50, 499.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Anti-Jewish measures: District Court of Borås 2–2-1939, Bulletin vol. 41, 263; District Court of Göteborg 7–2-1939, Court of Appeal of Jönköping 30–6-1939, Bulletin vol. 41, 264; Weisz v. Simon, Supreme Court 11–6-1941, Ann. Dig. Suppl. Vol., 108, Z.A.I.P. 1941–42, 833 and Supreme Court 10–6-1942, Z.A.I.P. 1949–50, 497.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Claim of British Enemy Property Custodian rejected: Hopf Products Ltd. v. Paul Hopf and Skandinaviska Banken Aktiebolag, Supreme Court 25–9-1944, Ann. Dig. 1943–1945, 63, Supreme Court 16–10-1944, Z.A.I.P. 1949–50, 497.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Stern v. Steiner, Bulletin vol. 41, 263; Anninger v. Hohenberg, Ann. Dig. 1938-

    Google Scholar 

  83. 1940, 19; Loeb v. Manhattan Co, Ann. Dig. 1938–1940, 20; Zwack v. Kraus Bros & Co, A.J.I.L. 1951, 377; Augstein v. Banska a Hutni Akciova Spolecnost, A.J.I.L. 1954, 513.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Bollack v. Société Générale..., Ann. Dig. 1941–1942, 147; reference was made to the New York Civil Practice Act.

    Google Scholar 

  85. People’s Court of Batoum October 1922, Clunet 1923, 663, re the ships Georges and Edwich; cf. supra, 78.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Tunis District Court 11–5-1907, S. 1908.2.115; cf. supra, 78.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Manes v. Kommissarische Verwalter, Cantonal Court of Hilversum 13–12-1938, N.J. 1939, Nr 51, Ann. Dig. Suppl. Vol., 20; Firm of Komotau v. Kommissarische Verwalter, Cantonal Court of The Hague 14–6-1939, N.J. 1939, Nr 764, Ann. Dig. Suppl. Vol., 21; cf. supra, 78. Several other Dutch decisions, however, rejected the claims of Verwalter; cf. supra, 87, 88.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Re Eulenberg, Milan District Court 4–6-1940, Modern L.R. 1942–43, 167; cf. supra, 78.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Martens, Nouveau Rec. 3e série, XIII, 141.

    Google Scholar 

  90. S. Rundstein, Zweigniederlassungen russischer Aktiengesellschaften in Polen, Ostrecht 1925, 330.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Infra, 115 ff., 124.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Martens, Nouveau Rec. 3° série, XI, 888.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Infra, 116, 124.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Martens, Nouveau Rec. 3° série, XI, 864.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Martens, Nouveau Rec. 3° série, XI, 877.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Infra, 124.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Ministry of Home Affairs v. Helperin & Ewald, decision of Kaunas 7/21–12-1931, Z.f.O. 1933, 818, severely criticized by J. Robinson and G. Chklaver.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Supra, 30 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Treaty of Brest-Litovsk 3–3-1918, Martens, Nouveau Rec. 3° série, X, 773; after the rupture of this treaty soon the Rapallo-Treaty was made, Martens, Nouveau Rec. 3° série, XII, 70.

    Google Scholar 

  100. See Luther v. Sagor [1921] 3 K.B. 532.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Recognition was granted through a telegram under date October 28, 1924, J. Delehelle, La situation juridique des Russes en France (Lille, 1926), 124, 125.

    Google Scholar 

  102. For a concise survey of the period 1917–1933 see Ch. P. Anderson, Recognition of Russia, A.J.I.L. 1934, 90. A.J.I.L. 1934, Suppl., 1.

    Google Scholar 

  103. U.S. v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203 (1942).

    Google Scholar 

  104. 301 U.S. 324(1937).

    Google Scholar 

  105. Underhill v. Hernandez, 168 U.S. 250 (1897).

    Google Scholar 

  106. Ann. Dig. 1933–1934, 70.

    Google Scholar 

  107. U.S. v. Manhattan Co, A.L.R. 1942, 1220, cit. Herzfeld, 4.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Ann. Dig. 1938–1940, 141.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Cf. on this Hollander, 56, 66.

    Google Scholar 

  110. The domestic creditors had already been paid.

    Google Scholar 

  111. U.S. v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203 (1942).

    Google Scholar 

  112. Herzfeld, 24.

    Google Scholar 

  113. Ann. Dig. 1946, 29.

    Google Scholar 

  114. The same point of view can be concluded a contrario from some decisions only refusing extra-territorial effect on account of limitation of the claim: Guaranty Trust Comp. v. U.S., 304 U.S. 126 (1938), Ann. Dig. 1938–1940, 184; U.S.S.R. v. National City Bank, Ann. Dig. 1941–1942, 68; U.S. v. Curtiss Aeroplane Co, Ann. Dig. 1943–1945, 17; cf. Hollander, 52, 53 and Seidl-Hohenveldern, 144, 145.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Borchard, A.J.I.L. 1937, 675, A.J.I.L. 1942, 275; Jessup, A.J.I.L. 1937, 481, A.J.I.L. 1942, 282; notes in Harvard L. J. 1937, 162, 1942, 865; Yale L. J. 1937, 292, 1940, 324, 1942, 848.

    Google Scholar 

  116. More recent cases show this clearly: Plesch v. Banque Nationale d’Haiti, Ann. Dig. 1948, 13, A.J.I.L. 1948, 739, A.J.I.L. 1949, 814; Bollack v. Société Générale..., Ann. Dig. 1941–1942, 147; A/S Merilaid & Co v. Chase National Bank, Ann. Dig. 1947, 15, A.J.I.L. 1948, 231; cf. Seidl-Hohenveldern, 145.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Supra, 7, 8.

    Google Scholar 

  118. Sometimes it will occur that the confiscating state does not formaUy extinguish the corporation, but only seizes the shares; cf. Seidl-Hohenveldern, 130.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Cheshire, 193, 478; Dicey, 476; Wolff, 305; Wolff, Das I.P.R. Deutschlands, 117; Schnitzer, I, 303; Rabel, II, 85. On the question of this personal law, see e.g. Wolff, 297.

    Google Scholar 

  120. This is appaient from the German decision Reichsgericht 20–5-1930, Clunet 1934, 147, J.W. 1931, 141, not granting the nationalized corporation access to the court, so that the claim at issue remained outstanding.

    Google Scholar 

  121. Niboyet, Travaux 1935, 31; cf. also Lerebours-Pigeonnaire, Travaux 1934, 157, who compares the succursales with “... des rameaux poussés sur un tronc. Le tronc étant mort, les rameaux le sont aussi...”

    Google Scholar 

  122. Re Russian Bank for Foreign Trade [1933] 1 Ch. 745 at p. 764.

    Google Scholar 

  123. Brussels District Court 20–12-1934, Clunet 1935, 671; Brussels Court of Appeal 11–7-1936, R.C.D.I.P. 1937, 121 and Brussels Court of Appeal 11–7-1938, Bulletin vol. 41, 273; in Deckers en Van der Heyden c. Soc. Tannerie de l’Azoff, Liège District Court 25–3-1938, Bulletin vol. 41, 273, it was even stated that a corporation after confiscation in Soviet Russia is to be held as still existing until liquidation is demanded elsewhere.

    Google Scholar 

  124. Trib. comm. de la Seine 16–1-1922, Clunet 1923, 539.

    Google Scholar 

  125. Trib. comm. de la Seine 26–4-1922, Clunet 1923, 933; to the same effect Affaire Kharon, Trib. civil de la Seine 20–5-1921, Clunet 1923, 533.

    Google Scholar 

  126. This is evident e.g. in Vlasto c. Banque Russo-Asiatique, Trib. comm. de la Seine 26–4-1922, Clunet 1923, 933: a valid departure of the articles of association — held a part of Russian law — in view of the évènements de force majeure dont la Russie est le theatre. Cf. Grouber et Tager, Clunet 1924, 8. However, the principle of force majeure was not consistently carried through: Banque Industrielle de Moscou c. Banque du Pays du Nord, Trib. comm. de la Seine 21–5-1924, Clunet 1927, 350 (powers of the management, appointed in l916 for the course of 5 years were to be considered finished); Mkeidze c. Banque Russo-Asiatique, Trib. comm. de la Seine 20–8-1924, Clunet 1925, 385 (“la nationalisation des banques russes ayant rompu tous liens et toute solidarité avec les succursales...”); cf. Picard et Tager, criticizing these cases: “... on risquerait d’aboutir le plus souvent a une dénie de justice”, Clunet 1927, 368.

    Google Scholar 

  127. Banque russe pour le commerce étranger, Trib. comm. de la Seine 16–1-1922, Clunet 1923, 539.

    Google Scholar 

  128. Bronstein c. Banque Russo-Asiatique, Trib. comm. de la Seine 3–6-1921, Clunet 1927, 349; Société Sago c. Société Russe de Transport et d’Assurances, Trib. comm. de la Seine 2–11-1923, Clunet 1927, 349; Société X c. Société Y., Trib. comm. de la Seine 29–11-1923, Clunet 1927, 350.

    Google Scholar 

  129. Shramchenko c. Tcheloff e.a., Trib. comm. of Marseilles 3–12-1920, Clunet 1924, 141.

    Google Scholar 

  130. Société Péroune, Trib. comm. de la Seine 5–1-1921, Clunet 1924, 139.

    Google Scholar 

  131. Journal officiel de la République française 1–7-1920, 9266 and Clunet 1920, 838.

    Google Scholar 

  132. Clunet 1925, 530.

    Google Scholar 

  133. See Goeldlin de Tiefenau, 27, 28.

    Google Scholar 

  134. Henrich, 79.

    Google Scholar 

  135. Héritiers A. Bouniatian c Société Optorg, Trib. civil de la Seine 12–12-1923, Clunet 1924, 113.

    Google Scholar 

  136. Bartin, I, 62.

    Google Scholar 

  137. Sollogoub, 98; Perret, 4, 36; Loussouarn, 144, 460.

    Google Scholar 

  138. Cf. Ordonnance of the President of the Tribunal de la Seine 23–12-1924, Clunet 1925, 419 (cf. Clunet 1927, 358); Veuve Lalande c. Banque russe pour le commerce étranger, Trib. comm. de la Seine 29–6-1932, Clunet 1934, 663; however, from Rabino-vitch c. Banque russe pour le commerce étranger, Trib. comm. de la Seine 15–5-1925, Clunet 1927, 354 and Société pour l’Approvisionnement et l’Industrie des cuirs et peaux c. Banque russe pour le commerce étranger, Trib. comm. de la Seine 26–11-1925, Clunet 1927, 354, it was apparent that this matter was judged differently as well: in these cases a factual transfer of the seat to France was not held sufficient by the court: it had to be proved that the transfer took place in a regular way. Picard and Tager vehemently protested, Clunet 1927, 366. To the same effect Dame Krivitsky c. Banque russe pour le commerce étranger, Trib. comm. de la Seine 19–11-1927, Clunet 1928, 132.

    Google Scholar 

  139. Perret, 35.

    Google Scholar 

  140. Picard et Tager, Clunet 1927, 364.

    Google Scholar 

  141. Clunet 1925, 530.

    Google Scholar 

  142. Trib. de la Seine 23–3-1925, Clunet 1927, 352; the instruction to the sequestrator exclusively mentioned competence as to branches; cf. Banque Russo-Asiatique, Trib. comm. de la Seine 1–10-1926, Clunet 1927, 359.

    Google Scholar 

  143. Clunet 1925, 419.

    Google Scholar 

  144. Trib. comm. de la Seine 3–12-1934, Clunet 1935, 125.

    Google Scholar 

  145. See on this Hémard’s standard work; for a short survey Perret, 40.

    Google Scholar 

  146. Perret (44) properly observes: “Cette difficulté aurait depuis longtemps amené les sociétés russes à la liquidation si la jurisprudence n’avait autorisé des palliatifs sous forme d’administrateurs provisoires etc,... ou si au moins au début les débiteurs n’avaient exécuté des paiements volontaires.”

    Google Scholar 

  147. E.g. Deutsche Bank und Diskonto Gesellschaft c. Banque internationale de Pétrograd, Cour d’Appel oî Paris 29–3-1938, Clunet 1938, 749, 1017.

    Google Scholar 

  148. E.g. in National City Bank of New York c. Société Renault Russe e.a., Trib. comm. de la Seine 12–7-1929, Clunet 1929, 1122.

    Google Scholar 

  149. E.g. Khorosch c. Société Rossia, Kamenka e.a., Cour d’Appel of Paris 7–1-1928, Clunet 1928, 687.

    Google Scholar 

  150. C. c. la Société d’Assurance Y., Trib. comm. de la Seine 1–5-1925, Clunet 1927, 353; Selikman c. Société de Naphte de Bakou, Trib. comm. de la Seine 12–4-1926, Clunet 1927, 357; Kamenka et Epstein c. H. et J. Cahn, Trib. comm. de la Seine 11–1-1927, Clunet 1927, 362; Darlay et Cie c. la Succursale de la Banque du Commerce et de l’Industrie, Trib. civil de la Seine (Réf.) 28–2-1927, Clunet 1928, 686; Zelenoff c. Banque de Commerce de Sibérie, Cour d’Appel of Paris 31–1-1928, Clunet 1928, 679; in this case a domicile de fait was assumed in France, though no business was carried on there; the place where the archives were kept was taken for domicile. In the decision Banque de Sibérie c. Vairon et Cie, Cour d’Appel of Bordeaux 2–1-1928, Clunet 1929, 115, au existence de fait was demanded as a condition for the existence of a société de fait; in this case an existence de fait was not assumed.

    Google Scholar 

  151. Karagoulian c. Banque russe pour le commerce et l’industrie, Cour d’Appel of Paris 17–5-1927, Clunet 1928, 131.

    Google Scholar 

  152. Cour d’Appel of Paris 8–3-1928, Clunet 1928, 682.

    Google Scholar 

  153. National City Bank of New York’ c. Société Renault Russe e.a., Trib. comm. de la Seine 12–7-1929, Clunet 1929, 1122; Deutsche Bank & Diskonto Gesellschaft c. Banque Internationale de Petrograd e.a., Trib. comm. de la Seine 27–6-1934, Clunet 1935, 117, stating “elle a survécu à sa propre disparition comme société de fait”-, Ancelle c. Société du Naphte Russe, Trib. comm. de la Seine 22–1-1934, Clunet 1935, 125; Maximoff c. Société de Banque Volga-Kama, Trib. comm. de la Seine 22–1-1934, Clunet 1935, 125; L’association des porteurs de parts de la Banque Internationale de Commerce de Pétrograd et Hennéants c. Banque Internationale de Commerce de Pétrograd e.a., Trib. comm. de la Seine 17–8-1934, Clunet 1935, 125; Nahoum c. Banque russe pour le commerce étranger, Trib. comm. de la Seine 3–12-1934, Clunet 1935, 125; Deutsche Bank c. Nobel, Trib. comm. de la Seine 20–1-1936, Ann. Dig. 1935–1937, 193; Deutsche Bank & Diskonto Gesellschaft c. Banque Internationale de Pétrograd, Cour d’Appel of Paris 29–3-1938, Clunet 1938, 749, 1017; Banque Russe c. Technogor, Cour d’Appel of Paris 3–1-1944, R.C.D.I.P. 1948, 81.

    Google Scholar 

  154. Cie Nord de Moscou c. La Union et Phénix Espagnol, Trib. civil de la Seine 9–5-1925, Clunet 1926, 126 and Cour d’Appel of Paris 13–6-1928, Clunet 1929, 119; Banque de Sibérie c. Vairon et Cie, Cour d’Appel of Bordeaux 2–1-1928, Clunet 1929, 115; Cockerill c. La Union et Phénix Espagnol, Cour d’Appel of Paris 23–12-1930, Clunet 1931, 400, Cass. 4–7-1933, Clunet 1934, 662; Société Wildenberg c. Comptoir National d’Escompte, Trib. comm. de la Seine 15–1-1934, Clunet 1934, 653; Crédit Français c. Koulmann, Trib. comm. de la Seine 23–1-1934, Clunet 1934, 653; Banque Scandinave et Vve Rosenthal c. Kamenka e.a. [Banque Azof-Don), Trib. comm. de la Seine 21–1-1935, Clunet 1935, 134.

    Google Scholar 

  155. Perret, 77.

    Google Scholar 

  156. J.W. 1925, 1300, Ostrecht 1925, 163, Clunet 1925, 1057.

    Google Scholar 

  157. Russian Commercial and Industrial Bank v. Comptoir d’Escompte de Mulhouse and others [1923] 2 K.B. 630, [1925] A.C. 112.

    Google Scholar 

  158. Dated 25–10-1927, J.W. 1928, 1232, Z.f.O. 1928, 1583.

    Google Scholar 

  159. Re Spahn & Sohn A.G., Reichsgericht 20–5-1930, J.W. 1931, 141, Z.f.O. 1930, 646, Clunet 1934, 147; Reichsgericht 11–7-1934, J.W. 1934, 2845, Clunet 1935, 164.

    Google Scholar 

  160. Russian Commercial and Industrial Bank v. Comptoir d’Escompte de Mulhouse and others [1923] 2 K.B. 630, [1925] A.C. 112.

    Google Scholar 

  161. Banque Internationale de Commerce de Pétrograd v. Goukassow [1923] 2 K.B. 682, [1925] A.C. 150.

    Google Scholar 

  162. An English translation of the decrees formed an appendix to the judgment.

    Google Scholar 

  163. [1923] 2 K.B. 643.

    Google Scholar 

  164. Dicey, 866; Wolff, 218; Cheshire, 127.

    Google Scholar 

  165. 17 Ll.L.L.R. 316, 20 Ll.L.L.R. 308.

    Google Scholar 

  166. [1926] 1 K.B. 1, [1927] A.C. 95.

    Google Scholar 

  167. [1927] 1 Ch. 495.

    Google Scholar 

  168. [1928] 1 Ch. 922.

    Google Scholar 

  169. The Jupiter (No. 1) [1924] P. 236; The Jupiter (No. 2) [1925] P. 69; The Jupiter (No. 3) [1927] P. 122, P. 250.

    Google Scholar 

  170. [1925] A.C. 112.

    Google Scholar 

  171. [1927] A.C. 95.

    Google Scholar 

  172. [1927] P. 122 P. 250.

    Google Scholar 

  173. 79 Ll.L.L.R. 262, Brit. Yearb. 1930, 235, Clunet 1928, 756, Z.f.O. 1929, 303.

    Google Scholar 

  174. [1932] 1 K.B. 617, [1935] A.C. 289 and 49 T.L.R. 94.

    Google Scholar 

  175. Wortley, Brit. Yearb. 1933, 6.

    Google Scholar 

  176. [1932] 1 Ch. 435.

    Google Scholar 

  177. Re Russian and English Bank [1932] 1 Ch. 663.

    Google Scholar 

  178. Re Russian and English Bank [1934] 1 Ch. 276.

    Google Scholar 

  179. Russian and English Bank v. Baring Bros & Co [1935] 1 Ch. 120, [1936] A.C. 405; cf. infra, 121.

    Google Scholar 

  180. [1933] 1 Ch. 745.

    Google Scholar 

  181. [1934] Ch. 720.

    Google Scholar 

  182. Cf. Wohl, Ostrecht 1925, 113.

    Google Scholar 

  183. (1938) 158 L.T.R. 364.

    Google Scholar 

  184. 9 A/S Tallina Laevauhisus Ltd v. Tallina Shipping Co and Estonian State S.S. Line (1946) 79 Ll.L.L.R. 245, Brit. Yearb. 1946, 384, A /S Tallina Laevauhisus v. Estonian State S.S. Line (1947) 80 Ll.L.L.R. 99, Brit. Yearb. 1947, 416.

    Google Scholar 

  185. Russian Commercial and Industrial Bank v. Comptoir d’Escompte de Mulhouse and others [1923] 2 K.B. 630, [1925] A.C. 112.

    Google Scholar 

  186. Lazard Bros & Co v. Banque Industrielle de Moscou, Lazard Bros & Co v. Midland Bank Ltd [1932] 1 K.B. 617, [1933] A.C. 289 and 49 T.L.R. 94.

    Google Scholar 

  187. Dordrecht District Court 12–1-1927, N.J. 1927, 447, Ann. Dig. 1927–1928, 71.

    Google Scholar 

  188. The Hague District Court 9–3-1933, N.J. 1933, 1662, Ann. Dig. 1933–1934, 80.

    Google Scholar 

  189. The Hague Court of Appeal 3–6-1937, N.J. 1937, 1675, Ann. Dig. 1935–1937, 204.

    Google Scholar 

  190. The Hague Court of Appeal 20–1-1950, N.J. 1950, No. 752.

    Google Scholar 

  191. Amsterdam District Court 11–6-1940, N.J. 1940, No. 1095, Amsterdam Court of Appeal 4–11-1942, N.J. 1943, No. 496, Ann. Dig. Suppl. Vol., 21.

    Google Scholar 

  192. Forsikringsaktieselskapet Norske Atlas v. Sundén-Cullberg, Supreme Court 18–10-1929, Ann. Dig. 1929–1930, 97; Commercial and Industrial Bank of Russia v. Aktie-bolaget Göteborgs Bank, Supreme Court 26–6-1931, Ann. Dig. 1931–1932, 142; Ruditzky v. Aktiebolaget Svenska Handelsbanken, Supreme Court 26–3-1932, Ann. Dig. 1931–1932, 143; Stockholms Enskilda Bank v. Amilakvari, Supreme Court 12–11-1938, Ann. Dig. Suppl. Vol., 107; Azov-Don Bank, Supreme Court 19–10-1945, Z.A.I.P. 1949–50, 499; Supreme Court 30–12-1947, Z.A.I.P. 1949–50, 501; in the last mentioned case an Esthonian nationalization was at issue, the other cases dealt with Russian nationalizations.

    Google Scholar 

  193. Banque internationale de Commerce de Pétrograd c. Hausner, Swiss Supreme Court 10–12-1924, R.O. 50 II 507, Clunet 1925, 488; Wilbuschewitz c. Autorité tutélaire de la Ville de Zürich et Dép.t. de justice du Canton de Zürich, Swiss Supreme Court 13–7-1925, R.O. 51 II 259, Clunet 1926, 1110.

    Google Scholar 

  194. Banque russe pour le commerce étranger c. Association d’emprunt et de dépot de Cetatea-Alba, Court of Cassation 4–11-1921, Clunet 1925, 1125; Court of Cassation 5–12-1932, Clunet 1935, 718.

    Google Scholar 

  195. Ann. Dig. 1923–1924, 44, 37 A.L.R. 712, Clunet 1925, 446.

    Google Scholar 

  196. Ann. Dig. 1925–1926, 57; cf. Goeldlin de Tiefenau, 122.

    Google Scholar 

  197. Ann. Dig. 1925–1926, 54, Clunet 1925, 451, Clunet 1925, 1070.

    Google Scholar 

  198. Ann. Dig. 1929–1930, 38, Clunet 1930, 782.

    Google Scholar 

  199. 37 A.L.R. 720, Clunet 1928, 789.

    Google Scholar 

  200. Ann. Dig. 1933–1934, 65.

    Google Scholar 

  201. Cour d’Appel of Bordeaux 2–1-1928, Clunet 1929, 115; Cass. 29–7-1929, Clunet 1930, 680.

    Google Scholar 

  202. Trib. Civil de la Seine 9–5-1925, Clunet 1926, 126; Cour d’Appel of Paris 13–6-1928, Clunet 1929, 119.

    Google Scholar 

  203. Cour d’Appel of Paris 23–12-1930, Clunet 1931, 400; Cass.4–7-1933, Clunet 1934, 662. This view is tacitly assumed in several decisions, e.g. Crédit Français c. Koulmann, Trib. comm. de la Seine 23–1-1934, Clunet 1934, 653; Société Wildenberg c. Comptoir National d’Escompte, Trib. comm. de la Seine 15–1-1934, Clunet 1934, 653; Comptoir d’Escompte c. Rosenfeld et Brzezinski, Cour d’Appel of Paris 6–7-1935, Clunet 1936, 916; cf. Bartin, 1, 67 and Picard et Tager, Clunet 1929, 131.

    Google Scholar 

  204. Cf. supra note 3; this is also evident from e.g. Banque Internationale de Commerce de Petrograd c. Hausner, Swiss Supreme Court 10–12-1924, R.O. 50 II 507, Clunet 1925, 488; Herani v. Wladikawkaz Raylway Co, Amsterdam District Court 11–6-1940, N.J. 1940, 1607, Ann. Dig. Suppl. Vol., 21 and many other decisions.

    Google Scholar 

  205. Supra, 78, 91 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  206. The Companies Act 1948 has similar regulations in sections 398 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  207. Section 977-b see Hollander, 171.

    Google Scholar 

  208. Cf. supra, 90.

    Google Scholar 

  209. See S. Rundstein, Ostrecht 1925, 330; S. Wierzbowski, Z.f.O, 1928, 1097; Perret, 96, 120, 163, 191; Rabinowitsch, Z.f.O. 1929, 1109.

    Google Scholar 

  210. Z.f.O. 1928, 1087.

    Google Scholar 

  211. Z.f.O. 1928, 1237.

    Google Scholar 

  212. Decree of March 22, 1928, Z.f.O. 1928, 1164.

    Google Scholar 

  213. Martens, Nouveau Rec. 3° série, XI, 888.

    Google Scholar 

  214. Act of July 31, 1924, Z. f. Osteur. Recht I (1925), 93.

    Google Scholar 

  215. Z. /. Osteur. Recht I (1925), 275.

    Google Scholar 

  216. Decree of September 17, 1926, Z.j.O. 1927, 56, 82.

    Google Scholar 

  217. Z.f.O. 1927, 1359.

    Google Scholar 

  218. Martens, Nouveau Rec. 3° série, XI, 864.

    Google Scholar 

  219. Decree of October 27, 1920, according to Rabinowitsch, Z.f.O. 1929, 1113.

    Google Scholar 

  220. According to Wohl, Ostrecht 1925, 67, 68.

    Google Scholar 

  221. On this Perret, 96, 120, 163 and Annexes.

    Google Scholar 

  222. New York Civil Practice Act, Section 977-b, sub. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  223. As to England it was stated in Russian and English Bank v. Baring Bros & Co [1932] 1 Ch. 435, that shareholders had not the right to take this initiative; but in Dairen Risen Kabushiki Kaisha v. Shiang Kee [1941] A.C. 373, it was held that they did have the right. The latter point of view was taken in France as well: L’Association des porteurs de parts de la Banque Internationale de Commerce de Pétrograd et Hennéants c. Banque Internationale de commerce de Petrograd e.a., Trib. comm. de la Seine 17–8–1934, Clunet 1935, 125; Maximoff c. Société de Banque Volga-Kama, Trib. comm. de la Seine 22–1–1934, Clunet 1935, 125. To the same effect the Austrian decision L.G. Vienna 3–3-1951, according to Seidl-Hohenveldern, 122 note 31; likewise the Belgian case Deckers en Van der Heyden c. Soc. Tannerie de l’Azoff, Trib. comm. of Liege 25–3–1938, Bulletin vol. 41, 273.

    Google Scholar 

  224. New York Civil Practice Act, Section 977-b, sub 2; Russian and English Bank v. Baring Bros & Co [1932] 1 Ch. 435; Re Azoff-Don Commercial Bank [1954] 1 All E.R. 947; Banque Scandinave et Vve Rosenthal c. Kamenka e.a. (Banque Azoff-Don), Trib. comm. de la Seine 21–1–1935, Clunet 1935, 134.

    Google Scholar 

  225. Cf. Sollogoub, 150.

    Google Scholar 

  226. Sollogoub, 151.

    Google Scholar 

  227. Cf. e.g. the New York Civil Practice Act, Section 977-b.

    Google Scholar 

  228. Section 338 (2) of the Companies Act 1929; section 400 of the Companies Act 1948.

    Google Scholar 

  229. Sabatier v. The Trading Cy [1927] 1 Ch. 495; In re Tea Trading Co and Popoff Brothers [1933] 1 Ch. 647.

    Google Scholar 

  230. In re Tovarishestvo Manufactur Liudvig Rabenek [1944] Ch. 404, a hotel can be considered a place of business.

    Google Scholar 

  231. Banque des Marchands de Moscou v. Kindersley [1951] 1 Ch. 112, sufficient that there were assets of the bank in this country. To the same effect Re Azoff-Don Commercial Bank [1954] 1 All E.R. 947 (cf. I.C.L.Q. 1954, 506).

    Google Scholar 

  232. If nationalization is attended with a total upheaval of the legal system, as for instance was the case in Russia where Czarist law was substituted by Soviet law, it might be possible to consider application of the old law; such application of dead law, however, is to be rejected; cf. supra, 30.

    Google Scholar 

  233. Perret, 80; a plain indication of the lex fori as governing law is found in Deckers en Van der Heyden c. Soc. Tannerie de l’Azoff, Trib. comm. of Liege 25–3–1938, Bulletin vol. 41, 273.

    Google Scholar 

  234. Vlasto c. Banque Russo-Asiatique, Trib. comm. de la Seine 26–4-1922, Clunet 1923, 933: the “évènements de force majeure dont la Russie est la théatre” were to be taken into account; Banque russe pour le commerce étranger, Trib. civil de la Seine (Réf.) 3–5-1926, Clunet 1927, 358; election of the management by co-optation was held valid (“seul procédé de reconstitution possible en l’absence Rassemblées générales”); Fred. S. James & Co v. Rossia Insurancy Cy of America, Clunet 1928, 789: legality of the action of the management was to be tested for fairness and good faith rather than for strictly formal regulations; Petrogradsky Bank v. National City Bank, Ann. Dig. 1929–1930, 38, Clunet 1930, 782: the management was held competent though its powers were expired under the articles of association; Sevemoe Securities Corp. v. London & Lancashire Ins. Co (1931), cit. Hollander, 44: surviving directors, less than a quorum, were held competent to act as conservators of the properties of the company; Re People by Beha (Northern Insurance Co and Moscow Fire Insurance Co) (1931), cit. Hollander, 44, 45: a sole director of the dismembered company can act as conservator (on condition of surety); Woronin, Lütschg and Cheshire v. Messrs. Frederik Huth & Co 79 Ll.L.L.R. 262, Brit. Yearb. 1930, 235, Clunet 1928, 756, Z.f.O. 1929, 303: meeting of shareholders not called in line with the articles of association; the same A/S Tallina Laevauhisus v. Tallina Shipping Co and Estonian State S.S. Line (1946) 79 Ll.L.L.R. 245; Helvetia v. De Nederlanden van 1845, The Hague District Court 9–3-1933, N.J. 1933, 1662, Ann. Dig. 1933–1934, 80: liquidator held competent though not appointed by a meeting of shareholders in accordance with the articles of association. Cf. however supra, 99.

    Google Scholar 

  235. Benoist et Levieux c. National City Bank of New York, Brussels District Court 20–12-1934, Clunet 1935, 671; Brussels Court of Appeal 11–7-1936, R.C.D.I.P. 1937, 121 and 11–7-1938, Bulletin vol. 41, 273 (re Banque Russo-Asiatique); Nobel c. Deutsche Bank e.a., Cour d’Appel of Paris 15–6-1937, Clunet 1937, 812 (appeal case of the decision Trib. comm. de la Seine 20–1-1936, Revue Darras 1937, 117); Stockholms Enskilda Bank v. Amilakvari, Swedish Supreme Court 12–11-1938, Ann. Dig. Suppl. Vol., 107; Re Azov-Don Bank, Swedish Supreme Court 19–10-1945, Z.A.I.P. 1949–50, 499. As to situs problems cf. supra, 44 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  236. New York Civil Practice Act, section 977-b sub 1: “... the assets in this state...”; as to Poland, Latvia, Esthonia, China, cf. supra, 115 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  237. Meanwhile some decisions supporting this opinion are to be found: Banque Russe c. Technogor, Cour d’Appel of Paris 3–1-1944, R.C.D.I.P. 1948, 81; Helvetia v. De Nederlanden van 1845, The Hague District Court 9–3-1933, N.J. 1933, 1662, Ann. Dig. 1933–1934, 80, The Hague Court of Appeal 3–6-1937, N.J. 1937, 1675, Ann. Dig. 1935–1937, 204; Commercial and Industrial Bank of Russia v. Aktiebolaget Göteborgs Bank, Royal Court of Stockholm 18–3-1930, Revue Darras 1930, 695, Z.f.O. 1930, 675 and Swedish Supreme Court 26–6-1931, Ann. Dig. 1931–1932, 142; German Reichs-gericht 11–7-1934, J.W. 1934, 2845, Clunet 1935, 164. As for England it is stated that on the one side exclusively the English assets can be controlled, but on the other hand it is held that it is none the less the corporation which is being wound up and not the English affairs thereof, Russian and English Bank v. Baring Bros & Co [1936] A.C. 405, at p. 428; cf. M. Mann, I.C.L.Q. 1954, 690.

    Google Scholar 

  238. Perret, 143.

    Google Scholar 

  239. L’Association des porteurs de parts de la Banque Internationale de Commerce de Pétrograd et Hennèants c. Banque Internationale de Commerce de Pétrograd e.a., Trib. comm. de la Seine 17–8-1934, Clunet 1935, 125; Nahoum c. Banque russe pour le commerce étranger, Trib. comm. de la Seine 3–12-1934, Clunet 1935, 125; Ancelle c. Soc. de Naphte russe, Trib. comm. de la Seine 22–1-1934, Clunet 1935, 125; Maximoff c. Soc. de Banque Volga-Kama, Trib. comm. de la Seine 22–1-1934, Clunet 1935, 125.

    Google Scholar 

  240. In re Russian and English Bank [1934] 1 Ch. 276.

    Google Scholar 

  241. Russian and English Bank v. Baring Bros & Co [1935] 1 Ch. 120.

    Google Scholar 

  242. Russian and English Bank v. Baring Bros & Co. [1936] A.C. 405.

    Google Scholar 

  243. Russian and English Bank v. Baring Bros & Co. 54 T.L.R. 1035.

    Google Scholar 

  244. Cf. the decisions mentioned supra, 121, holding that the management, eventually completed, could act as liquidator under the articles of association; differently Banque Scandinave et Vve Rosenthal c. Kamenka e.a. (Bank Azoff-Don), Trib. comm. de la Seine 21–1-1935, Clunet 1935, 134; here a mandataire de justice was appointed in contravention of the articles of association.

    Google Scholar 

  245. New York Civil Practice Act, section 977-b; the English Companies Act; Polish legislation.

    Google Scholar 

  246. E.g. New York Civil Practice Act, section 977-b, sub 11: minimum of 60 days; Polish decree of March 22, 1928, Z.f.O. 1928, 1164, section 9: three months.

    Google Scholar 

  247. Wilbuschewitz c. Autorité tutélaire de la ville de Zurich et Dépt. de justice du canton de Zurich, Swiss Supreme Court 13–7-1925, R.O. 51 II 259, Clunet 1926, 1110; Ho-chorow’s Erben g. Obergericht Zürich, Swiss Supreme Court 26–10-1929, R.O. 55 I 289, Ann. Dig. 1929–1930, 99; Deckers en Van der Hey den c. Soc. Tannerie de l’Azoff, Trib. comm. of Liege 25–3-1938, Bulletin vol. 41, 273.

    Google Scholar 

  248. Supra, 120.

    Google Scholar 

  249. Perret, 143.

    Google Scholar 

  250. This is apparent for example from the New York Civil Practice Act, which also covers a corporation which “has heretofore been... dissolved, liquidated or nationalized...”

    Google Scholar 

  251. Cf. Perret, 157.

    Google Scholar 

  252. Cf. Perret, 142.

    Google Scholar 

  253. Z.f.O. 1928, 1164.

    Google Scholar 

  254. Z.f.O. 1927, 1359.

    Google Scholar 

  255. Perret, 163.

    Google Scholar 

  256. Perret, 147.

    Google Scholar 

  257. Russian and English Bank v. Baring Bros & Co [1936] A.C. 405; Re Azoff-Don Commercial Bank [1954] 1 All E.R. 947; Re Banque des Marchands de Moscou (No. 2) [1954] 2 All E.R. 746.

    Google Scholar 

  258. Deckers en Van der Heyden c. Soc. Tannerie de l’Azoff, Trib. comm. of Liege 25–3-1938, Bulletin vol. 41, 273; cf. Perret, 155, 157; also Niboyet and Travers, Travaux 1935, 11.

    Google Scholar 

  259. Compagnie Belgo-Luthuanienne d’Electricité, Brussels Court of Appeal 25–6-1947, Clunet 1950, 864.

    Google Scholar 

  260. Wilbuschewitz c. Autorité tutélaire de la ville de Zurich et Dèp.t. de justice du canton de Zürich, Swiss Supreme Court 13–7-1925, R.O. 51 II 259, Clunet 1926, 1110.

    Google Scholar 

  261. Teslenko c. Banque Russo-Asiatique and Aratzkoff c. Banque Russo-Asiatique, Cour d’Appel of Paris 22–7-1929, Clunet 1929, 1095; a different view was held in some decisions of the Trib. comm. de la Seine: Teslenko c. Banque Russo-Asiatique 28–3-1927, Clunet 1929, 78; Rabinovitch c. Banque russe pour le commerce étranger 15–5-1925, Clunet 1927, 354; Société pour l’Approvisionnement et l’Industrie des cuirs et peaux c. Banque russe pour le commerce étranger 26–11-1925, Clunet 1927, 354.

    Google Scholar 

  262. Supra, 124.

    Google Scholar 

  263. Cf. Seidl-Hohenveldern, 125.

    Google Scholar 

  264. Dairen Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha v. Shiang Kee [1941] A.C. 373; Wilbuschewitz c. Autorité tutélaire de la ville de Zurich et Dép.t. de justice du canton de Zürich, Swiss Supreme Court 13–7-1925, R.O. 51 II 259, Clunet 1926, 1110; Prochorow’s Erben g. Obergericht Zürich, Swiss Supreme Court 26–10-1929, R.O. 55 I 289, Ann. Dig. 1929–1930, 99; Deckers en Van der Heyden c. Soc. Tannerie de l’Azoff, Trib. comm. of Liege 25–3-1938, Bulletin vol. 41, 273; Compagnie Belgo-Lithuanienne d’Electricité, Cour d’Appel of Brussels 25–6-1947, Clunet 1950, 864; Stockholms Enskilda Bank v. Amilak-vari, Swedish Supreme Court 12–11-1938, Ann. Dig. Suppl. Vol., 107.

    Google Scholar 

  265. Ripert, Travaux 1935, 29; Perret, 186.

    Google Scholar 

  266. In England it has been suggested in this connection that the Crown might assert rights on bona vacantia: Dicey, 296; M. M. Wolff, Z.f.O. 1933, 723; Wortley, Brit. Yearb. 1933, 3; cf. Seidl-Hohenveldern 115–116. From the decision In Re Banque Industrielle de Moscou [1952] 1 Ch. 919 it is apparent that, not a single shareholder playing a part, only the “surplus and no more than that surplus, was saved to the Crown”; to the same effect Re Azoff-Don Commercial Bank [1954] 1 All E.R. 947; cf. Perret, 187. As to France it is argued by Niboyet, Travaux 1935, 34, that no proportional distribution should take place but that the State must be entitled to the surplus.

    Google Scholar 

  267. From Deckers en Van der Heyden v. Soc. Tannerie de l’Azoff, Trib. comm. of Liege 25–3-1938, Bulletin vol. 41, 273, it is apparent that neither the confiscating state nor citizens of that state may participate; different opinion, however in Prochorow’s Erben g. Obergericht Zürich, Swiss Supreme Court 26–10-1929, R.O. 55 I 289, Ann. Dig. 1929–1930, 99; Stockholms Enskilda Bank v. Amilakvari, Swedish Supreme Court 12–11-1938, Ann. Dig. Suppl. Vol., 107; cf. also Seidl-Hohenveldern, 126.

    Google Scholar 

  268. Supra, n. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  269. 301 U.S. 324 (1937); cf. supra, 92, 93.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Maassluis, The Netherlands

    Pieter Adriaanse

Authors
  1. Pieter Adriaanse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1956 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam., Adriaanse, P. (1956). Extra-Territorial Confiscations. In: Confiscation in Private International Law. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-8915-6_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-8915-6_4

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8240-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-011-8915-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation