« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »
obtained; that is, it has the conclusive effect of a domestic judgment.
The law of France restrains the operation of foreign Law of judgments within narrower limits. Judgments obtained France. in a foreign country against French subjects are not conclusive, either where the same matter comes again incidentally in controversy, or where a direct suit is brought to enforce the judg. ment in the French tribunals. And this want of comity is even carried so far, that, where a French subject commences a suit in a foreign tribunal, and judgment is rendered against him, the exception of lis finita is not admitted as a bar to a new action by the same party, in the tribunals of his own country. If the judgment in question has been obtained against a foreigner, subject to the jurisdiction of the tribunal where it was pronounced, it is conclusive in bar of a new action in the French tribunals, between the same parties. But the party who seeks to enforce it must bring a new suit upon it, in which the judgment is primâ facie evidence only; the defendant being permitted to contest the merits, and to show not only that it was irregularly obtained, but that it is unjust and illegal.2
The execution of foreign judgments in personam is recipro. cally allowed, by the law and usage of the different States of the Germanic Confederation, and of the European continent in general, except Spain, Portugal, Russia, Sweden, Norway, France, and the countries whose legislation is based on the French civil code.3 A deeree of divorce obtained in a foreign country, by
Foreign a fraudulent evasion of the laws of the State to which divorces. the parties belong, would seem, on principle, to be clearly void in the country of their domicile, where the marriage took place, though valid under the laws of the country where the divorce was obtained. Such are divorces obtained by parties going into another country for the sole purpose of obtaining a dissolution of the nuptial contract, for causes not allowed by the laws of their own country, or where those laws do not permit a divorce à vinculo for any cause whatever. This subject has been thrown into almost inextricable confusion, by the contrariety of decisions between the tribunals of England and Scotland; the courts of the former refusing to recognize divorces à vinculo pronounced by the Scottish tribunals, between English subjects who had not acquired a bona fide permanent domicile in Scotland; whilst the Scottish courts persist in granting such divorces in cases where, by the law of England, Ireland, and the colonies connected with the United Kingdom, the authority of parliament alone is competent to dissolve the marriage, so as to enable either party, during the lifetime of the other, again to contract lawsul wedlock.
i Cranch’s Rep. vol. vii. pp. 481-484: Mills v. Duryee. Wheaton's Rep. vol. iii. p. 234: Hampton v. M'Connel.
2 Code Civil, art. 2123, 2128. Code de Procédure Civil, art. 546. Pardessus, Droit Commercial, Pt. VI. tit. 7, ch. 2, § 2, No. 1488. Merlin, Répertoire, tom. vi. tit. Jugement. Questions de Droit, tom. iii. tit. Jugement. Toullier, Droit Civil Français, tom. x. Nos. 76–86.
3 Fælix, Droit International Privé, SS 293–311.
In the most recent English decision on this subject, the House of Lords, sitting as a Court of Appeals in a case coming from Scotland, and considering itself bound to administer the law of Scotland, determined that the Scottish courts had, by the law of that country, a rightful jurisdiction to decree a divorce between parties actually domiciled in Scotland, notwithstanding the marriage was contracted in England. But the Court did not decide what effect such a divorce would have, if brought directly in question in an English court of justice.? (a)
In the United States, the rule appears to be conclusively settled that the lex loci of the State, in which the parties are bona fide domiciled, gives jurisdiction to the local courts to decree a divorce, for any cause recognized as sufficient by the local law, without regard to the law of that State where the marriage was
1 Dow's Parliament. Cases, vol. i. p. 117: Tovey v. Lindsay, p. 124. Lolly's
See Fergusson's Reports of Decisions in the Consistorial Courts of Scotland, passim.
2 Warrender v. Warrender, Bligh. Rep. vol. ix. p. 89. S. C. Clark & Finnell. Rep. vol. i. p. 488.
(a) [The status of parties, domiciled subjects of and married in America, is . not so affected by a sentence pronounced at and founded on a rule of law peculiar to Rome, the persons being then resident at Rome and coming subsequently to England, that an English forum would, by reason of such sentence, refuse to entertain questions arising out of the married state of such persons. English Law and Equity Reports, vol. ii. p. 570. Connelly v. Connelly.]
originally contracted. This, of course, excludes such divorces as are obtained in fraudulent evasion of the laws of one State, by parties removing into another for the sole purpose of procur. ing a divorce.
1 Dorsey v. Dorsey, Chandler's Law Reporter, vol. i. p. 287.
RIGHTS OF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LEGISLATION.
RIGHTS OF EQUALITY.
ral equality of States modifier
$ 1. Natu- The natural equality of sovereign States may be
ty modified by positive compact, or by consent implied compact
i by from constant usage, so as to entitle one State to supe. or usage. riority over another in respect to certain external objects, such as rank, titles, and other ceremonial distinctions.
al Thus the international law of Europe has attributed honors. to certain States what are called royal honors, which are actually enjoyed by every empire or kingdom in Europe, by the Pope, the grand duchies in Germany, and the Germanic and Swiss Confederations. They were also formerly conceded to the German empire, and to some of the great republics, such as the United Netherlands and Venice.
These royal honors entitle the States by which they are pos. sessed to precedence over all others who do not enjoy the same rank, with the exclusive right of sending to other States public ministers of the first rank, as ambassadors, together with certain other distinctive titles and ceremonies.
63. Pre Among the princes who enjoy this rank, the Catholic
powers concede the precedency to the Pope, or soveprinces and reign pontiff; but Russia and the Protestant States of States enjoying royal Europe consider him as Bishop of Rome only, and
a sovereign prince in Italy, and such of them as enjoy royal honors refuse him the precedence.
| Vattel, Droit des Gens, tom. i. liv. ii. ch. 3, § 38. Martens, Précis du Droit des Gens Moderne de l'Europe, liv. iii. ch. 2, $ 129. Klüber, Droit des Gens Moderne, pt. ii. tit. 1, ch. 3, SS 91, 92. Heffter, Europäische Völkerrecht, $ 28.
The Emperor of Germany, under the former constitution of the empire, was entitled to precedence over all other temporal princes, as the supposed successor of Charlemagne and of the Cæsars in the empire of the West; but since the dissolution of the late Germanic constitution, and the abdication of the titles and prerogatives of its head by the Emperor of Austria, the pre*cedence of this sovereign over other princes of the same rank may be considered questionable.
The various contests between crowned heads for precedence are matter of curious historical research as illustrative of European manners at different periods; but the practical importance of these discussions has been greatly diminished by the progress of civilization, which no longer permits the serious interests of mankind to be sacrificed to such vain pretensions. The text-writers commonly assigned to what were
The great called the great republics, who were entitled to royal Republics. honors, a rank inferior to crowned heads of that class; and the United Netherlands, Venice, and Switzerland, certainly did formerly yield the precedence to emperors and reigning kings, though they contested it with the electors and other inferior princes entitled to royal honors. But disputes of this sort have commonly been determined by the relative power of the contending parties, rather than by any general rule derived from the form of government. Cromwell knew how to make the dignity and equality of the English Commonwealth respected by the crowned heads of Europe; and in the different treaties between the French Republic and other powers, it was expressly stipulated that the same ceremonial as to rank and etiquette should be observed between them and France which had subsisted before the revolution.
Those monarchical sovereigns who are not crowned heads, but who enjoy royal honors, concede the precedence on all occasions to emperors and kings.
1 Martens, $ 152. Klüber, $ 95.
2 Treaty of Campo Formio, art. 23, and of Luneville, art. 17, with Austria. Treaties of Basle with Prussia and Spain. Schoell, Histoire des Traités de Paix, tom. i. p. 610. Edit. Bruxelles.