1. “On a étudié pendant des siècles les conflits de lois sans reprendre parallèlement l'étud de la compétence judiciaire. C'était sans doute une erreur; mais sa prolongation pendant une telle durée est aussi le signe de diff´rences de fond entre les deux domaines”. Batiffol, Observations sur les liens de la compétence judiciaire et de la compétence législative, De Conflictu Legum, Essays presented to Kollewijn, R. and Offerhaus, J., 66 (1962).Google Scholar

2. The selection of New York's procedures of attachment was mainly predicated by the enactment of the new Civil Practice Law and Rules reflecting the characteristic approach of many States in this field.

3. Loi du 25 mars 1876 contenant le titre I^er du livre préliminaire du Code de procédure civile, 1876 Pasinomie 1, 21 (1876).Google Scholar

4. Article 14 of the French Civil Code provides that an alien, even not residing in France, may be summoned before French courts for the fulfillment of obligations contracted by him with a French person. He may be called before French courts for obligations contracted by him in a foreign country with Frenchmen.

5. Article 15 of the French Civil Code provides that a French person may be summoned before a French court for the fulfillment of obligations contracted abroad even with foreigners.

For case law under article 14 of the French Civil Code see De Vries, and Lowen-feld, , Jurisdiction in Personal Actions. A Comparison of Civil Law Views, 44 Iowa L. Rev. 306 (1959).Google Scholar

6. Nadelmann, , Jurisdictionally Improper ForaGoogle Scholar, in Legal Essays in Honor of H.E. Yntema 321 (1961).Google Scholar

7. Delaume, , American-French Private International Law, 57 (1953).Google Scholar

8. For these extensions and interpretations see von Mehren, and Trautman, , The Law of Multistate Problems, 668 (1965)Google Scholar, hereinafter von Mehren and Trautman.

9. Gaudemet-Tallon, , Recherches sur les origines de l'Article 14 du Code Civil, Paris, 1964Google Scholar. Hereinafter Gaudemet-Tallon.

10. The findings of Mrs. Gaudemet-Tallon, regarding the unfortunate final redaction of article 14. may be summarized as follows: Starting from the general recognized basis of adjudicatory jurisdiction belonging to the courts of the forum contractus and of the courts of the forum arresti (Gaudemet-Tallon, , 75)Google Scholar, the draftsmen of the Code Civil introduced articles 7 and 8 in their first project (id., 76). Article 7 is especially important as being reproduced in article 14 of the efinite Code. The draft was submitted for advice to the French courts. Pursuant to the objections of the Tribunal de Cassation, the drafters amended the original provisions of article 7 as follows: “A foreigner may be summoned before the French courts for the fulfillment of the obligations which he contracted in France with a French person, even if he does not reside in France; and if he is found in France, he may be summoned before the courts of France even for obligations which he contracted in a foreign country with French persons.”

The first paragraph of the revised article 7 confirmed the exception of adjudicatory jurisdiction based upon the idea of forum contractus and the second paragraph gave adjudicatory jurisdiction to the courts upon the forum arresti precedent of the “Ancien Droit”. However, several vicissitudes in the enactment procedure of the Code persuaded Napoleon to stop the whole project. Under this threat Bigot du Préameneu presented the final draft of the Code to the Conseil d'Etat. An error in the redaction omitted the words “if he is found in France” as stated in article 7 of the tentative draft. Apparently the legislator did not remark the changes operated by the omission (id., 81).

11. Gaudemet-Tallon, id., 74.

12. Gaudemet-Tallon, id., 61 ff.

13. Decree of Philippe le Bel of March 7, 1294, reported by Isambert, , Decrusy, , Jourdan, , Receuil des anciennes lois françaises, vol. II, 696 (hereinafter Isambert).Google Scholar

14. Gaudemet-Tallon, id., 65.

15. Gaudemet-Tallon, id., 72.

16. Decree of August 1786 reported by Isambert, , Tome XXVIII, 229.Google Scholar

17. Gaudemet-Tallon, id., 73.

18. This historical note is restricted to some jurisdictional problems especially under the Spanish and Austrian dominations. (16th–18th centuries)

19. 1 Bigwood, , Le régime juridique et économique du commerce de l'argent dans la Belgique du Moyen Age, 418 (1921).Google Scholar

20. As expressly mentioned in the “octroi” of Valenciennes the in 14th century, and in “chartes” of the 15th century in Hainaut and Brabant. Cited in 1 Bigwood, , 298 ff.Google Scholar

21. Catalan Royer v. Thomas and Bernard Royer, Antwerp, 04 3, 1406Google Scholar. The case is extensively reported in 2 Bigwood, , 397 (1922).Google Scholar

22. “Que nuls Archevêques, Evêques, Prince, ou Noble de quelque état ou condition il fût, Ecclésiastique ou Temporel, ne pourrait prendre ou exercer quelque juridiction ou connaissance des personnes et biens des Habitants des Pays de Lothier, et de Brabant, et de Limbourg, ne les tirer en cause hors desdits Pays fût par arrêt, citation, appellation par sentences définitives, ou interlocutoires, pour quelque cause ou action personnelle, réelle, criminelle, mixte, ou autre quelle qu'elle fût, n'était en cas de négation de justice sur certaines grosses peines, et mulctes, déclarant nul et de nulle valeur tout ce qui avait été fait, ou attempté au contraire.”

Text reported in “Eerste Deel vanden Derden Placaet-Boeck van Vlaenderen”, 197 (1685).Google Scholar

This privilege was known as the “Golden Bull” because its seal was linked with a golden wire. This privilege imposed such a burden upon people living in other European countries that an author called it the “Lead Bull”. “Quam, si ob insigne gravamen quod vininis statibus inferi, non auream sed plumbeam dixeris nomen rei conveniret” (Strykis) cited by Defacqz, L., Ancien Droit Belgique, 238 (1873).Google Scholar

23. Christofle de Landtsheere v. Josse van de Wouwere.

The three stages in the procedure are reported as following in the “Eerste Deel vanden Derden Placcaet-Boeck van Vlaenderen,” 192–198Google Scholar:

— Déclaration provisioned (sic) de l'Empereur du 21 May 1529;

— Acte confirmatoir (sic) de la déclaration du 24 Novembre 1529;

— Sentence définitive confirmatoire du 4 Janvier 1531.

24. A city of the Spanish Netherlands.

25. Eerste Deel vanden Derden Placaet-Boeck van Vlaenderen, 192 (1685).Google Scholar

26. id., 194.

27. id., 194.

28. 1 Defacqz, , Ancien Droit Belgique, 238 (1873).Google Scholar

29. Dame de Sweveghem v. Nicholas Adriaenssens, 10 24, 1676Google Scholar reported in Dulaury, Receuil des Arrêts Notables rendus au Grand Conseil à Malines, arrêt CLXXXIX (1717).

See also Magdalena Clerin v. Caroli de Fraye, 12 18, 1713Google Scholar; and Joanne Proost v. Aegidium Van Meldert, 12 22, 1714Google Scholar; as reported by Wynants, , Supremae Curiae Brabantiae Decisiones Recentiores, Decisio XXXVIII, 105 (1744)Google Scholar; See also Isabella Perrone v. Robertum Vander Schueren, 05 6, 1716Google Scholar as reported by Wynants, id., Decisio XXXIX, 109 (1744).

30. Louis de Cock v. Charles Coppenolle, Rescription du 26 Janvier 1699Google Scholar du Grand Conseil au Conseil Privé du Roy, reported by Dulaury, id., 421 (1717).

31. Dulaury, id., 422.

32. Provinces and cities of the Spanish Netherlands.

33. Paulus Christinus reports several “decisiones” concerning the privileges of jurisdiction in the first volume of his “Practicarum Quaestionum Rerumque in Supremis Belgarum Curiis actarum et observatarum Decisiones (1671): e.g. decisio 355 (5) on page 446: “Sed in Flandria aliisque locis ubi concedens eamdem bullam jurisdictionem aut dominiumnon habuit, saepissime judicatura fuit eam locum non habere; licet econtra contendant Brabanti ratione confirmationum eisdem factarum, prout videre licet ex sententia in supremo Consilio Mechliniensi lata anno 1531 ubi dictum et declara turn fuit, eamdem non possenec debere obtinere, sortirive suum effectum in Commitatu Flandriae, et idem fuit declaratum quoad Hollandes, Zelandos et Mechlinienses, uti alibi relatum est supra”.

and decisio 356 on page 447: “Nullus Belga generaliter in causa Ecclesiastica, civili aut mixta, trahi potest in prima instantia extra patriam, tam ex privilegio Leonis Decimi dato Romae 3 Non. Jul. anno 1515 quam Philippi Pulchri Archi-Ducis et Ducis Brabantiae Montibus ad Zomam dato 22 Septembr. anno 1500 qui inhibuit edicto suo, huiusmodi conservatorias impetrari, et conservatoribus aut impetrantibus ne uterentur. Ideoque si quando contra factum fuit passim saepius impetrationes eiusmodi econtra factae, fuerunt cassatae et annulatae in judiciis contradictoriis”.

34. “Les tribunaux français sont institués pour rendre la justice aux Français”. Comte de Bloome v. Princesse de Bagration, Ch. Reg. Cass. Civ. 04 2, 1833Google Scholar. Dalloz, , Jurisprudence Générale, I, 250 (1833)Google Scholar. For the modern evolution of this attitude see Batiffol, Traité ´lémentaire de droit international privé, §§697, 698 (3d. ed. 1959).

35. Grossière v. Hautrive, Cass. Belgium, 03 12, 1840Google Scholar (1840) Pasicrisie I. 316 with “conclusions conformes” by the Procureur Général M. Leclercq.

Flescher v. Valériane, Cass. Belgium, 08 3, 1848Google Scholar, 7 Belgique Judiciaire 145 (1849).Google Scholar

Bérautv. Béraut, Cour d'Appel of Brussels, 05 28, 1876Google Scholar, 25 Belgique Judiciaire, 1105 (1867).

36. Pavy et Morel v. Lateltin, Cour d'Appel of Brussels, 04 28, 1858Google Scholar, 17 Belgique Judiciaire, 996 (1859).

37. Mortgage Law of 12 16, 1851Google Scholar, Article II, 2; Pasinomie, , 429 (1851).Google Scholar

38. Pasinomie, , 176 (1854).Google Scholar

39. Actually article 726 of the Belgian Civil Code; Pasinomie, III, (1865).Google Scholar

40. The project of new Code of Civil Procedure as already presented in the Senate maintains unchanged the provisions of articles 52, 53 and 54 of the “Loi sur la Compétence” of 1876. The articles are merely reorganized under the new articles 635, 636, 637 and 638 of the project. See generally Van Reepdnghen, Rapport sur la Réforme Judiciaire (1964).

41. As shall be developed in a further section, this article 52, 3° can be easily compared with an Illinois or New York “long arm” statute.

42. This paragraph 11 of the law of 1876 has been restricted by the project of new Code of Civil Procedure. Only cases of assistance in the high seas will be regulated by article 635, 11° (incorporating actual article 52 of the law of 1876). Cases of collisions will be regulated by the new article 636.

43. The term “present chapter” means essentially article 52.

44. Laurent, , 4 Droit Civil International, 9 (1880).Google Scholar

45. Laurent, , De la compétence des tribunaux belges relativement aux étrangers, 36 Belgique Judiciaire, 745 (1878).Google Scholar

46. 1 De Paepe, , Etudes sur la compétence civile à l'égard des étrangers, 132 (1900).Google Scholar

47. id., 131.

48. id., 131.

49. “A mon avis nous ne devrions pas faire de la réciprocité à sanctionner par les législations étrangères ou les traités une condition indispensable des mesures de progrès que nous décrétons. Les dispositions nouvelles que nous écrivons dans nos lois sont justes et rationnelles. Sachons les adopter sans les faire dépendre du consentement des gouvernements étrangers”. Cited by 1 De Paepe, , 133.Google Scholar

50. “Si le gouvernement cherche à l'aide de conventions, à obtenir des modifications à cet état de choses, il sera, pour négocier, dans une situation meilleure, car il aura quelque chose à accorder aux peuples voisins, à la Hollande et à la France, par exemple”. Cited by De Paepe, , 134.Google Scholar

51. Article 29 of the Law of December 15, 1949.

52. Magruder, J. in Sampson v. Channel, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit, 1940Google Scholar. 110 F. 2d 754 in his evocation of the ghost of Swift v. Tyson.

53. Article 3 of the EEC Draft (on jurisdiction, enforcement and recognition of judgments) provides for the abolition of article 15 of the Civil Code and of articles 52, 53 and 54 of the Law of 1876. More will be said about this Draft Convention in Chapter III, Section IV of this paper.

54. Article 10 reads as follows: The district court (tribunal de première instance) deals with decisions rendered by foreign courts in civil and commercial matters. If a treaty based on reciprocity is in force between Belgium and the country in which the decision was rendered, then the courts will only examine the five following matters, to wit:

(1) Whether the decision contains nothing deemed to be in conflict with the “ordre public”, or in conflict with principles of Belgian constitutional or administrative law;

(2) Whether, pursuant to the laws of the country where the decision has been rendered, it is res judicata;

(3) Whether, according to the same law, the certified copy submitted meets all the conditions required for its authenticity;

(4) Whether the rights of the defendant have been safeguarded;

(5) Whether the foreign court has jurisdiction solely by reason of the nationality of the plaintiff.

55. De Beauffremont v. De Beauffremont et consorts, Cass. Belgium, 01 19, 1882Google Scholar, (1882) Pasicrisie, I, 36.Google Scholar

56. Article 570 of the project of new Code of Civil Procedure.

57. The decision of the French Cour de Cassation in Munzer v. Munzer (Cass. civ. 01 7, 1964Google Scholar, Juridique, Semaine 1964, II, 13590Google Scholar note Ancel and 91 Clunet 302 (1964) — note Goldman) no longer requiring the “révision au fond” as an absolute condition for enforcement of a foreign judgment was the result of a constant denial of the right of “révision au fond” by the Cour d'Appel of Paris. See also von Mehren, and Trautman, , 865 (1965).Google Scholar

Hopefully, the Belgian legislator will be influenced by this decision, according to the adage that when it rains in Paris it mists in Brussels.

58. McDonald v. Mabee, 243 U.S. 90, 91 (1917).Google Scholar

59. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 733 (1878).Google Scholar

60. In their attempt to rationalize historically this power concept, Professors von Mehren and Trautman write: “The historic excuse for easy acceptance of this premise [the concept of power] perhaps lies in the rather late emergence, at least so far as articulated judicial and scholarly comment is concerned, in the common law of the problem of adjudicatory jurisdiction in the international sense. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, the period in which so much of the common law's thinking on conflicts of laws was crystallized, the theory of sovereignty — a philosophy that reduced so many phenomena to a lowest common denominator of power — was widely accepted”. (The Law of Multistate Problems, 630 (1965))Google Scholar

61. The Law of Multistate Problems, Chapter VI: “The Bases of Adjudicatory Jurisdiction”, 586–830 (1965).Google Scholar

62. General adjudicatory jurisdiction means the forum's general power to adjudicate any kind of controversy. Von Mehren, and Trautman, , 654 and 667 (1965).Google Scholar

63. Prudential Insurance Co. v. Himmelfarb, Common Pleas, Delaware County, Pennsylvania, 1948, 35 Del. Co. R. 371.Google Scholar

64. Peabody v. Hamilton, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 1870, 106 Mass. 217.Google Scholar

65. The traditional French approach based upon article 14 of the Civil Code.

66. Von Mehren, and Trautman, , 671–697 (1965).Google Scholar

67. For the German approach see generally von Mehren, and Trautman, , 673 and 674.Google Scholar

68. Plummer v. Hetton, 51 Minn. 181, 53 N.W. 460 (1892).Google Scholar

69. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 and 733 (1878).Google Scholar

70. Restatement Second, Conflict of Laws §98 (1) (Tent. Draft No. 4, April 5, 1957).

71. First Trust Co. of St. Paul v. Matheson, 187 Minn. 468, 246 N.W.1 (1932)Google Scholar. Harris v. Balk, 198 U.S. 215 (1905).Google Scholar

72. Von Mehren, and Trautman, , 654 (1965).Google Scholar

73. Von Mehren, and Trautman, , 702–747Google Scholar and cases cited.

74. A distinction between jurisdiction in personam, in rem and quasi-in-rem is artifical. “Adjudication always involves the determination of rights and duties of persons, natural or artificial. Things have no rights or duties but are the subjects or objects of rights and duties”. [Von Mehren and Trautman, 653 (1965)] This distinction no longer exists in Belgium since all personal, real and mixed actions were abolished by the Law of March 25, 1876. See 1 De Paepe, 135.

75. Volume XXI, Courts §15.

76. Developments in the Law. State Court Jurisdiction, Selected Essays on Civil Procedure, reprinted from the Harvard Law Review, 235 (1961).Google Scholar

77. Beale, , The Exercise of Jurisdiction in Rem to Compel Payment of a Debt, 27 Harvard L. Rev., 107 (1913).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

78. Beale, id., 109.

79. Freeman v. Alderson, 119 U.S. 185, 7 Sup. Ct. 165, 30 L. Ed. 372 (1886).Google Scholar

80. Wynants, Supremae Curiae Brabantiae Decisiones Recentiores, Decisio CCXXVI, De Arrestis et Jure Sistendi Observationes Variae, 526(9), (1744) (hereinafter Wynants).

81. See section 11, 4 in present chapter.

82. Wynants, , Decisio CCXXVI, 529(13).Google Scholar

83. This paragraph shows that the notion of “Full Faith and Credit” was not unknown in this early period in Europe. In Edwards v. Prescot, the court referred to the broad recognition practices in Holland. This case is reported in 1 Kames, , Remarkable Decisions of the Court of Sessions, 1717 to 1728, 59 (1729)Google Scholar and in Morison, , Dictionary of Decisions, 4535 (1801).Google Scholar

However, one should not confuse the province of “Holland”, one of the Member States of the Dutch Confederation, with the actual Netherlands. The State of Holland enacted indeed a “Full Faith and Credit” clause in one of its statutes on jurisdiction. Article 27 of the “Ordonnantie, van de Justitie, binnen den Steden ende ten platten Lande van Hollandt. In date den 1 April 1580” stipulated that when satisfaction of judgments could not be secured out of the assets located within the rendering jurisdiction, the other courts in Holland should recognize them. The text of article 27 is reported in “Groot Placaet-Boeck Vervattende de Placaten, Ordonantien ende Edicten der Vereenighde Nederlanden, Hollandt, West-Vrieslandt en Zeelandt, Volume II, 701 (1664)Google Scholar and reads as follows:.“Ende alle die goederen, Meublen, immeublen ende crediten des gecondemneerdes, inde Jurisdictie vanden Rechtere die de Sententie ghewesen heeft, verkocht zijnde, soo verre deselve als noch niet en mogen strecken, ende deselve gecondemneerde andere goederen heeft buyten de Jurisdictie vanden Rechtere dïe't vonnisse ghewesen heeft, soo sal binnen 's Jaers naer date vande Sententie, bij letteren requisitoir, aenden Rechters daer onder de goederen ghelegen zijn, verkocht worden omme daer aen bij executie ende verkoopinge 't voorder achterwesen te verbalen, mette kosten daer omme ghedaen: op welcke requisitie alle Rechters in Hollandt gehouden sullen wesen d'executie te doen”. See also Voet, 's CommentariesGoogle Scholar, Book XLII, Tit. 1, §41 and Made, Groenewegen vander, Tractates de Legibus Abrogatis et Inusitatis in Hollandia, 307 (1669).Google Scholar

For the American history of the Full Faith and Credit Clause see Nadelmann, , Full Faith and Credit to Judgments and Public Acts. A historical-analytical Reappraisal, 56 Mich. L. Rev. 33 (1957).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

84. For detailed comments, one should consult: Leurquin, , Code de la Saisie Arrêt (1906)Google Scholar. Braas, , Procédures d'Ouverture des Successions. Voies d'Exécution. Procédure de Distribution, (2d ed. 1953)Google Scholar. Répertoire pratique du Droit Belge, 541–790 (1940).Google Scholar

Van Lennep, , Belgisch Burgerlijk Procesrecht, Vol. 7, Maatregelen van Bewaring (1955).Google Scholar

85. Van Hee, , Het Forain Beslag, 27 Rechtskundig Weekblad 1493 (1964).Google Scholar

86. In the districts (arrondissements) where no Court of Commerce is established, the same jurisdiction belongs to the President of the District Court (Tribunal de lere Instance). Article 8 of the “Loi sur la Compétence” as modified by article 1 of the Law of 03 15, 1932Google Scholar, Pasinomie, 39 (1932).Google Scholar

87. Uniform Law on the Bills of Exchange and Notes Payable to Order approved by the Belgian Law of August 16, 1932, modified and supplemented by the Law of Aug. 10, 1953, Pasinomie, 526 (1953)Google Scholar based upon the International Convention of Geneva of June 7, 1930.

88. Documents of the House of Representatives, No. 174, 83 (1931–32) cited by Simon, and De Beus, , Wetboek van Koophandel, 124 (4th ed. 1961).Google Scholar

89. Several Belgian customs use the word “clain” for attachment of movables, immovables or even for arrest. “Clain réel” meant “saisie-exécution, saisie-arrêt; clain personnel meant “contrainte par corps”. 19 Pandectes Beiges, 749 (1886). Arrest will only be accorded upon express demand of the “partie civile” in cases of condemnation to pay restitution, damages and costs in criminal matters or when the defendant has been condemned for non-criminal acts committed malignantly or in bad faith. Law of July 27, 1871, Pasimonie, , 166 (1871).Google Scholar

Arrest may be exercised against foreigners in Belgium (Trib. Namur, March 24, 1944, Bulletin des Assurances, 286 (1944). However, article 24 of the Hague Convention of July 17, 1905 provides that foreigners can only be subjected to arrest in the cases provided for the nationals (Belgian Law of April 20, 1909, Pasinornie, 53, (1909).Google Scholar

90. Article 581 CCP enumerates the non-seizable assets.

91. Articles 1289, 1293 and 1294 of the Civil Code.

92. La Société de Corphalie et Brixhe v. Franchimont, Liège, 07 8, 1854Google Scholar, Pasicrisie, II, 34 (1855).Google Scholar

93. Braas, id., 251.

94. Article I (8) of the Mortgage Law of December 16, 1851; see also article 656 CCP.

95 In that sense: Socobel et Etat Belge v. Etat Hellénique, Banque de Grèce, et Banque de Bruxelles, Civ. Brussels, 04 30, 1951Google Scholar, Journal des Tribunaux 298 (1951) and Graulich, Principes de Droit international privé, 195 (1961).

Contra: S.A. Imesco, S.A. Ane. Ets. Daems et B. Thiebaut v. Haute Commission Alliée en Allemagne, Civ. Brussels (référé) 03 11, 1953Google Scholar, Journal des Tribunaux, 586 (1953) and Leurquin, Code de la Saisie-Arrêt, 170 (1906).

96. Braas, ibid., 259.

97. For procedure and delays in summoning a foreign defendant, see article 69 bis CCP and 73 CCP.

98. Article 635 bis CCP was introduced by Royal Decree of March 30, 1936, Pasinomie 214 (1936).

It will suffice to mention that by means of the “cantonnement” device the debtor may free the assets by putting a sufficient amount of money in the “Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations” or in the hands of a receiver (Article 553 CCP as modified by the Royal Decree of March 30, 1936, Pasinomie 214 (1936)).

99. Belgian-French Treaty of 07 8, 1899Google Scholar, Belgian Law of 03 31, 1900Google Scholar, Pasinomie, 329 (1900)Google Scholar, and generally Weser, Etude critique du Traité franco-belge du 8 juillet 1899, (1951). Hereinafter Weser.

100. This provision lost importance since the “Tribunal de lère instance” has a general adjudicatory jurisdiction (Law of March 15, 1932, Pasinomie, 39 (1932)).Google Scholar

101. See Chapter V, Section I (1).

102. Moyon v. Veuve Lauritz-Lund, Cassation Belgium, 11 17, 1898Google ScholarPasicrisie, I, 21 (1899)Google Scholar and Périodiques, Pandectes981 (1898).Google Scholar

103. Weser, ibid., 186 citing Fillet and Niboyet.

104. Weser, ibid., 193.

105. Weser, ibid., 198.

106. Belgian-Dutch Treaty of 03 28, 1925Google Scholar. Belgian Law of August 16, 1926 Pasinomie, 549 (1929)Google Scholar. Article 764 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure enables every creditor, pursuant to an order of the President of the District Court, to attach the property of his debtor if the latter does not have a known domicile in the Netherlands. The same court also has jurisdiction to decide the entire claim. Garnishment of debts in the Netherlands does not create adjudicatory jurisdiction.

See generally and for case law on these points, Kollewijn, , American-Dutch Private International Law, 32 (and. ed. 1961).Google Scholar

107. Belgian-English Treaty of 02 2, 1934Google Scholar (Belgian Law of November 27, 1936), Pasinomie, 718 (1936).Google Scholar

108. Article 4 (I)(b) recognizes the defendant's right of special appearance. More will be said about this procedural technique in Chapter V, Section III.

109. Belgian-German Treaty of 06 30, 1958Google Scholar, Belgian Law of 08 10, 1960Google Scholar, Pasinomie, 1119 (1960).Google Scholar

110. Translated by von Mehren, and Trautman, , 673.Google Scholar

111. Von Mehren, and Trautman, , 674.Google Scholar

112. Von Mehren, and Trautman, , 585.Google Scholar

113. In that sense see Rigaux, Les dernières conventions sur l'efficacité internationale des jugements et des actes publics, conclues par la Belgique, Journal des Tribunaux, 197 (1961).Google Scholar

113a. One can only wonder why a provision similar to article 2 (4) of the German-Austrian Treaty (see note 172) has not been introduced in the Belgian-German Treaty.

114. Belgian-Swiss Treaty of 04 29, 1959Google Scholar, Belgian Law of May 21, 1962Google Scholar, Pasinomie 664 (1962).Google Scholar

115. Belgian-Italian Treaty of 04 6, 1962Google Scholar, Belgian Law of 11 28, 1963Google Scholar, Pasinomie, 1544 (1963).Google Scholar

116. Belgian-Austrian Treaty of 06 16, 1959Google Scholar, Belgian Law of 08 10, 1960Google Scholar (effective December 16, 1961), Pasinomie, 795 (1961).Google Scholar

117. Avant-projet de convention concernant la compétance judiciaire, la reconnaissance et l'exécution des décisions en matière civile et commerciale et l'exécution des actes authentiques. French text published in Document 14371 /N/ 67.F of the E.E.C., Direction générale de la concurrence, Direction du rapprochement des Législations. English text published in Common Market Reporter, 6003. German text published in 29 tabels Z., 594 (1965).

This draft has been transmitted to the different Governments for approval by the Ministers of Justice.

See Also Bellet, L'élaboration d'une convention sur la reconnaissances des jugements dans le cadre du Marché Commun, 92 Journal du Droit International (Clunet) 833–870 (1965).

118. Article 7: Within the field of application of this Treaty and without prejudice to the special provisions mentioned therein, any discrimination on the grounds of nationality shall hereby be prohibited.

The Council, acting by means of a qualified majority vote on a proposal of the Commission and after the Assembly has been consulted, lay down rules in regard to the prohibition of any such discrimination.

Article 220: Member States shall, insofar as necessary, engage in negotiations with each other with a view to ensuring for the benefit of their nationals: […] the simplification of the formalities governing the reciprocal recognition and execution of judicial decisions and of arbitral awards.

119. Weser, , 10 American Journal of Comparative Law, 328 (1961).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

120. Articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Draft Convention enumerate the exceptions to the general principle of “actor sequitur forum rei”. In following cases a party may be compelled to litigate outside his country of domicile: plurality of defendants, interpleader, place of performance of contracts, alimony cases, place of commission of a tort, as “partie civile” in a criminal prosecution, litigations concerning the management of corporations and branches, when a court in one of the Member States has jurisdiction according to an international convention concluded by this country.

121. The elements of this example can, of course, be infinitely varied in stressing all the exceptional rules in the Member States and by changing the nationality of the involved parties.

122. FCN Treaty with Italy, T. I. A. S. No. 1965 (effective July 26, 1949); FCN Treaty with the Federal Republic of Germany, T. I. A. S. No. 3593 (effective July 14, 1956);

FCN Treaty with the Netherlands, T. I. A. S. No. 3942 (effective December 5, 1957);

Convention of Establishment with France, Protocol and Declaration, T. I. A. S. No. 4625 (effective December 21, 1960).

For details on the application of most-favored-nation treatment strictly related to economic advantages one should consult: 2 Stein, and Nicholson, , American Enterprise in the European Common Market. A Legal Profile, 180–183 (1960)Google Scholar and Hay, , The European Common Market and the Most-Favored-Nation Clause, 23 Pittsburgh L. Rev., 661–684 (1962).Google Scholar

122a. Bellet, , op. cit., 853Google Scholar; Bülow, Vereinheitlichtes internationales Zivilprozessrecht in der Europäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft, 29 Rabelsz, 482 (1965).

123. This paper does not pretend to give an exhaustive survey of attachment and garnishment in all the States. Emphasis will be put on the procedure in New York for the main reason that its Code of Civil Procedure is a recent one.

Although this paper does not expressly deal with attachment and garnishment in the federal courts, it could be useful to state briefly the problem.

(1) Until 1963 no original action could be brought in a federal court upon attachment of defendant's assets (Currie, Attachment and Garnishment in the Federal Courts, 59 Mich. L. Rev. 337 (1961)).

(2) Once an action was commenced in State courts by attachment or garnishment it was possible, if the usual conditions for removal existed, to remove the case to a federal court. The state seizures continued in force after removal (Kaplan Amendments of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 1961–1963, 77 Harvard Law Review 623 (1964).

(3) Rule 4(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as amended through July 1, 1963 permits the use in original federal actions of quasi-in-rem service upon non-residents under the circumstances and in the manner provided by the law of the state in which the district court is held (Kaplan, id.).

(4) The status of the limited appearance in the federal courts is not clearly settled (von Mehren and Trautman, 773, 774 (1965) and cases cited).

See generaly 2 Moore's Federal Practice, on 4.32 [1] [2] (2nd ed. 1965).Google Scholar

124. 3 Blackstone, Commentaries, 280.Google Scholar

125. id.

126. id.

127. Kneeland, , A Treatise on the Law of Attachments in Civil Cases, 8 (1884).Google Scholar

128. Kneeland, id., 9.

The following definition has been given of the writ of capias: “The general name for several species of writs, the common characteristic of which is that they require the officer to take the body of the defendant into custody; they are writs of attachment or arrest”. (Black, Law Dictionary, 261 (4th ed. 1951).

129. Kneeland, id., 3.

130. Gurney v. Hardenberg, Common Pleas, 02 11, 1809, 1 Taunton 487, 127 Eng. Rep. 923.Google Scholar

This case is also extensively cited by Kneeland, 9.

131. 3 Blackstone, , Commentaries, 283.Google Scholar

132. Kneeland, id., 12 citing Erskine's Institutes, Book 1, Tit. V, § 55.

For more recent comments on the use of arrestment or attachment to found jurisdiction in Scotland, see Gibb, , The International Law of Jurisdiction in England and Scotland, 61 (1926).Google Scholar

133. Bohum, , Privilegia LendiniGoogle Scholar: or the Rights, Liberties, Privileges, Laws and Customs of the City of London, 253 (1702).Google Scholar

134. Kneeland, , 5.Google Scholar

135. Foreign attachment should be distinguished from “saisie foraine” the latter being applicable only against persons not residing in the city of arrest (article 822 CCP).

136. Mussman, and Riesenfeld, , Garnishment and Bankruptcy, 27 Minn. L. Rev. 1, 17 (1942).Google Scholar

137. 7 Annual Report of the Judicial Council of the State of New York, Recommendations relating to Attachment, 397 n. 31 (1941).

138. The New York Civil Practice Law and Rules are effective since September 1, 1963 (Commonly abbreviated as CPLR).

For an extensive treatise on New York Civil Procedure see Weinstein, Miller, and Korn, , New York Civil Practice (1965).Google Scholar Published in 8 volumes with looseleaf supplements. Hereinafter cited as Weinstein, Miller and Korn.

For a general one-volume survey of New York Civil Procedure, see Wachteil, , New York Practice under the CPLR (1963), hereinafter Wachtell.Google Scholar

139. For the New York provisional remedies, see 7 Weinstein, Miller and Korn, 60–1 to 71–65, and Wachtell, 178–221.

140. It should be noted that a complete merger between attachment and garnishment has occurred in New York. The term garnishment initially referred to a seizure of debts in the hands of a garnishee. Neither the CPLR nor the CPLR Forms make actually any distinction between both terms: A form of an order of attachment reads as follows in New York: “… And Now You, the Sheriff of (any) County, (in the State of New York) are hereby ordered and directed to attach property of the defendant (insert name) within your County by levy upon any interest(s) of the defendant in personal property, or upon any debt owed to the defendant, and upon any interest of the defendant in real property within your County at any time, and from time to time, before final judgment in this action, as will satisfy the plaintiff's demand herein, to the extent of $… together with probable interest, from (date), costs and Sheriff's fees and expenses, etc…”. Liner, , CPLR Forms and Guidance for Lawyers, 984 (1963).Google Scholar

141. 7 Weinstein, Miller, and Korn, 61–105 (1965).Google Scholar

142. 7 Weinstein, Miller, and Korn, 61–3 (1965)Google Scholar, referring to N.Y. Laws 1831, Ch. 300.

143. Article 63 §6301, CPLR; 7 Weinstein, Miller, and Korn, 63–2, 63–181 (1965)Google Scholar

144. 7 Weinstein, Miller, and Korn, 63–10, 63–11 (1965).Google Scholar

145. 7 Weinstein, Miller, and Korn, 63–65 (1965).Google Scholar

146. 7 Weinstein, Miller, and Korn, 63–71 (1965).Google Scholar

147. Article 64, CPLR; 7 Weinstein, Miller, and Korn, 64–1 to 64–50 (1965).Google Scholar

148. CPLR §§5106, 5228 Wachtell, 211.

149. Article 65, CPLR; 7 Weinstein, Miller, and Korn, 65–2 to 65–84 (1965).Google Scholar

150. 7 Weinstein, , Miller, and Korn, 65–27 (1965).Google Scholar

151. Article 71, CPLR; 7 Weinstein, , Miller, and Korn, 71–2 to 71–65 (1965).Google Scholar

152. 7 Weinstein, , Miller, and Korn, 71–21 (1965).Google Scholar

153. 7 Weinstein, , Miller, and Korn, 62–2 to 62–254 (1965).Google Scholar

154. For service by publication after an order of attachment has been granted, see CPLR §§314 (3), 315, 316 in 1 Weinstein, , Miller, and Korn, , 3–132 to 3–172.Google Scholar

155. The seven grounds for attachment as provided by the CPLR art. 62, §6201 are:

An order of attachment may be granted in any action, except a matrimonial action, when the plaintiff has demanded and would be entitled, in whole or in part, or in the alternative, to a money judgment against one or more defendants, when:

1. the defendant is a foreign corporation or not a resident or a domiciliary of the State; or

2. the defendant resides or is domiciled in the State and cannot be personally served despite diligent efforts to do so; or

3. the defendant, with intent to defraud his creditors or to avoid the service of summons, has departed or is about to depart from the State, or keeps himself concealed therein; or

4. the defendant, with intent to defraud his creditors, has assigned, disposed of or secreted property, or removed it from the State or is about to do any of these acts; or

5. the defendant, in an action upon a contract, express or implied, has been guilty of a fraud in contracting or incurring the liability; or

6. the action is based upon the wrongful receipt, conversion, or retention, or the aiding or abetting thereof, of any property held or owned by any governmental agency, including municipal or public corporation or officer thereof; or

7. there is a cause of action to recover damages for the conversion of personal property, or for fraud or deceit.

156. 7 Weinstein, , Miller, and Korn, 62–16 (1965).Google Scholar

157. 7 Weinstein, , Miller, and Korn, 62–17, 62–18 (1965).Google Scholar

158. 7 Weinstein, , Miller, and Korn, 62–18 (1965).Google Scholar

159. 7 Weinstein, , Miller, and Korn, 62–22 (1965).Google Scholar

160. 7 Weinstein, , Miller, and Korn, 62–24 (1965).Google Scholar

161. Wachtell, , 181.Google Scholar

162. 7 Weinstein, , Miller, and Korn, 62–223 (1965).Google Scholar

163. 7 Weinstein, , Miller, and Korn, 62–224 (1965).Google Scholar

164. See Chapter I, Section I (1).

165. id.

166. Tedesco v. Dumont, Tribunal Civil de la Seine (36 ch.) 03 8, 1890Google Scholar, 18 Clunet 559.

See also De Hamal v. De Snoy, Cour d'Appel of Paris, 01 19, 1850Google Scholar, S., 1850.2. 462., Polocki v. Taniewski, Cassation Civ., 03 23, 1868Google Scholar, S., 1868.1.328., Sandoz v. Pioda, Requètes, 12 30, 1929Google Scholar, Clunet 94 (1931)., Banque Franco-Serbe v. Danske-Landmansbank, Cour d'Appel of Paris (lère ch.) 05 21, 1957, 47Google Scholar Revue critique de Droit international privé, 128 (1958) (note Francescakis).

Discussing this interesting French approach Francescakis writes: “Or, ce sursis n'est nulle part écrit dans les textes de droit interne – que la jurisprudence considère, on le sait, en principe applicables aux rapports internationaux faute de textes spéciaux — en l'espèce les articles 557 et suivants du Code de Procédure civile. Il y a donc là un remarquable exemple d'adaptation prétorienne des règles internes aux exigences du commerce international”. (Francescakis, , Jurisprudence de Droit International Privé, 314, 315 (1961).Google Scholar

167. Article 64 of the Swiss Constitution provides that “The organization of the judiciary, legal procedure, and the administration of justice remain vested in the cantons to the same extent as hitherto”. 3 Peaslee, , Constitutions of Nations, Switzerland, 345 (1956).Google Scholar

168. Article 59 of the Swiss Constitution reads as following: “Suits for personal claims against a solvent debtor domiciled in Switzerland must be brought before the judge of his place of domicile; consequently the property of such a person may not be seized or sequestrated outside the canton in which he is domiciled by reason of personal claims.

“These provisions are, in respect of foreigners, without prejudice to the provisions of international treaties.

“Imprisonment for debt is abolished”.

Peaslee, , 344 (1956).Google Scholar

169. Adès v. Internationale Filmvertriebsanstalt, Swiss Supreme Court Zivilabteilung I, 03 23, 1965, 91Google Scholar Entscheidungen des Schweizerischen Bundesgerichtes, II, 44 (1965); See also (1965) Zeitschrift für Schweizerisches Recht, 106, I, 498 (Note Heini).

170. See Chapter III, Section III, 4.

171. See also Seidl-Hohenveldern, , American-Austrian Private International Law, 100, 101 (1963).Google Scholar

172. Germany and Austria are so well aware of the broad implications of these rules that they mitigated the effects in their bilateral Treaty on enforcement and recognition of judgments. If the defendant either did not appear or has vainly prayed for an exercise of limited general adjudicatory jurisdiction, an Austrian judgment will not be recognized in Germany, and vice versa.

Article a (4) of the German-Austrian Treaty on Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters of June 6, 1959 (BGBL 1960 II S. 1246) reads as follows:

“Die Anerkennung darf nur versagt werden, … wenn für die Entscheidung lediglich der Gerichtsstand des Vermögens gegeben war und die unterlegene Partei

(a) entweder sich auf den Rechtsstreit nicht eingelassen oder

(b) vor Einlassung zur Hauptsache erklärt hat, sich auf den Rechtsstreit nur im Hinblick auf das Vermögen einzulassen, das sich im Staate des angerufenen Gerichtes befindet;”.

See also Bülow-Arnold, , Internationaler Rechteverkehr in Zivil und Handelssachen (looseleaf edition 1952-), 465, 8 n. 40.Google Scholar

173. Nadelmann, , Jurisdictionally Improper Fora. Legal Essays in Honor of H.E. Yntema, 329 (1961).Google Scholar

174. As a practical mat one should keep in mind that personal belongings are no longer considered to be attachable. Baumbach-Lauterbach, , Zivilprozessordnung, § 23 comm. 2 at 58 (28 ed. 1965)Google Scholar citing also Stein, , Jones, , Schönke, , Pohle, , Zivil-prozessordnungGoogle Scholar, §23, comm. II, 1.

An even stronger deterrent will be found in the fact that the German court and lawyer fees are determined by the value of the underlying claims. A garnishor will be reluctant to pray for an attachment order for the whole amount of his claim if the attached assets are unsufficient to give him a complete relief.

See generally Lauterbach, , Kostengesetze, , (14 ed. 1960)Google Scholar and especially in the same volume: Gerichtskostengesetz, §§ 25 and 111; Bundesgebührenordnung für Rechtsanwälte, §§ 17 31. The same deterrent does not exist in Belgium. Lawyer's fees are not determined by statute and a judgment is only subjected to a 2% registration taxation (Article 142 of the Code des Droits d'Enregistrement, d'hypothèque et de greffe, as modified by article 10 § 1 of the Law of July 12, 1960).

175. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing in criminal as well as in civil matters. One could argue that a combination of article 6 and article 14, providing that the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention shall be secured regardless of national or social origin, would defeat the taking of an exorbitant jurisdiction over foreigners, non-domiciliaries of the EEC. One should however proceed cautiously and not yet assimilate article 6 and the American “due process” notions.

For a general analysis of article 6 of the European Convention see Buergenthal, Confrontation de la jurisprudence des tribunaux nationaux avec la jurisprudence de la Commission, de la Cour européenne des Droits de l'Homme et du Comité des Ministres: droits judiciaires (Articles 5, 6 et 13) (1965). Documents of the “International Colloquium on the European Convention of Human Rights”, Wien, 10 1965.Google Scholar

176. Moyon v. Vve Lauritz-Lund, Cassation Belgique, 11 17, Pasicrisie I, 21 (1898).Google Scholar

In this case the widow of the captain of a ship, sunken after a collision in the English Channel, brought a suit in Belgium after attachment of defendant's assets in Antwerp. The amount claimed was 100,000 B. Fr. All parties were foreigners. See also Leurquin, Code de la Saisie-Arrêt, 342 n.2 (1906).

177. Harris, v. Balk, , 198 U.S. 215 (1905).Google Scholar

Harris, a resident of North Carolina, was indebted to Balk, also a resident of North Carolina, in the sum of $ 180. In 1896 one Jacob Epstein, a resident of Baltimore, Maryland, asserted that Balk was indebted to him in the sum of over $ 300. While Harris visited Baltimore in 1896, Epstein had issued a foreign or non-resident writ of attachment against Balk, attaching the debt due Balk from Harris. The sheriff at Baltimore laid this writ in Harris' hands, with a summon to appear in the court at a day named. Harris did not contest the garnishee process, which was issued to garnish the debt which he owed Balk. After his return to North Carolina, Harris made an affidavit that he owed Balk $ 180, and stated that the amount had been attached by Epstein of Baltimore, and by his counsel in the Maryland proceedings Harris consented therein to an order of condemnation for $ 180, the amount he owed Balk. Harris paid the amount of the judgment to one Warren an attorney of Epstein, residing in North Carolina. The principal debtor, Balk, commenced a suit in North Carolina to recover the 8 180 which he averred Harris owed him. Harris pleaded in bar the Maryland judgment and contended that it was conclusive against Balk, because that judgment was a valid judgment in Maryland, and was therefore entitled to full faith and credit in the courts of North Carolina. The trial court entered a judgment against Harris holding that the Maryland court obtained no jurisdiction to attach or garnish the debt due from Harris to Balk, because Harris was but temporarily in the State, and the debt was in North Carolina. In reversing the judgment of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, the Supreme Court, by Mr. Justice Peckham, held that “the obligation of the debtor to pay his debts clings to and accompanies him wherever he goes” and that “power over the person of the garnishee confers jurisdiction on the courts of the State where the writ issues”. The court held that the Maryland judgment was a valid one because the court had jurisdiction over the garnishee by personal service of process within the State of Maryland and recognized as the duty of the garnishee “to give notice to his own creditor, if he would protect himself (from paying twice), so that the creditor may have the opportunity to defend himself against the claim of the person suing out of the attachment”.

178. Plummer v. Hetton, 51 Minn. 181, 53 NW. 460 (1892).Google Scholar

Goodrich, , Handbook of the Conflict of Laws, 108 (1964).Google Scholar

179. Ehrenzweig, , A. Treatise on the Conflict of Laws, 99 (1962).Google Scholar

180. Beale, , The Exercise of Jurisdiction in Rem to Compel Payment of a Debt, 27 Harv. L. Rev. 107 (1913)CrossRefGoogle Scholar citing with approval the French case Tedesco v. Dumont. Ehrenzweig, , A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws, 99–103 (1962).Google Scholar

Goodrich, , Handbook of the Conflict of Laws, 109–112 (4th ed. 1964).Google Scholar

Stumberg, , Principles of Conflict of Laws, 105–106 (3rd ed. 1963).Google Scholar

Von Mehren, and Trautman, , The Law of Multistate Problems, 693–695 (1965).Google Scholar

181. Goodrich, id., 112.

See also Chrysler Corp. v. Damm, 171 A 2d 223 (Super. Del., 1961).Google Scholar

182. Goodrich, id., 112.

183. Von Mehren, and Trautman, , 684 (1965).Google Scholar

184. Ehrenzweig, , 100 (1962).Google Scholar

185. Harris v. Balk, 198 U.S. 215 (1905).Google Scholar

186. This led Professor Ehrenzweig to make the following hypothesis: “Let us assume that Harris and Balk had stipulated payment in California, and the California law finds the situs of the debt at the place of payment. Although Harris never set foot on California soil, Epstein might have garnished his debt in a Californian court and served him by publication if the statute so provided. Whether this procedure would violate due process is uncertain”. Ehrenzweig, 100.

187. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Pennsylvania, 368 U.S. 71 (1961).Google Scholar See also Texas v. Florida, 306 U.S. 398 (1939).Google Scholar

188. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Pennsylvania, 368 U.S. 79 (1961).Google Scholar

189. As far as escheat problems are concerned, Mr. Justice Black's prediction has already become a reality. In Texas v. New Jersey et. al., 379 U.S. 674 (1965)Google Scholar the Supreme Court, by Mr. Justice Black, has held that the jurisdiction to escheat abandoned intangible personal property lies in the State of the creditor's last known address on the debtor's books and records or, absent such address or an escheat law, in the State of corporate domicile — but subject to later escheat to the former State if it proves such an address to be within its borders and provides for escheat of such property.

190. Cheatham, , Griswold, , Reese, and Rosenberg, , Cases on Conflict of Laws, 195 (5 ed. 1964).Google Scholar

191. Nussbaum, , Money in the Law National and International. A Comparative Study in the Borderline of Law and Economics, 146, 147 (1950).Google Scholar

192. Schlesinger, , Comparative Law, 212 (2 ed. 1960).Google Scholar

193. Universal Adjustment Corp. v. Midland Bank, Ltd., of London, 281 Mass. 303, 184 N.E. 152 (1933).Google Scholar

194. Weitzel v. Weitzel & Southern Pacific R.R. Co. of Mexico, 27 Ariz. 117, 230 Pac. 1106 (1924)Google Scholar noted 38 Harvard L. Rev., 1114 (1925).Google Scholar

195. Martin v. Nadel (1906) 2 K.B.26.Google Scholar

196. Lindeteves NV. v. Meilink, Hoge Raad of the Netherlands, 11 26, 1954.Google Scholar N.J. 1955 No. 698. Noted in 4 Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Internationaal Recht, 96 (1957). In this case the Hoge Raad upheld a refusal of the District Court of Amsterdam to make a garnishee order to secure payment of alimony by a divorced husband employed by a branch office of a Dutch corporation in Indonesia. The Hoge Raad held that such a garnishment order could only be issued if it were established that the public authorities at he place of payment would recognize the validity of the garnishment, and thus provide the garnishee with a valid defense as against his creditors.

197. On forum non conveniens standards and recognition of foreign judgments, see von Mehren, and Trautman, , 946.Google Scholar

198. In that sense, see 3 Rabel, , The Conflict of Laws. A Comparative Study., 469 (1958).Google Scholar

199. Ruff v. Ruff, 85 Pa. 333 (1877).Google Scholar

200. Recent case, 72 Harvard L. Rev., 573, 574 (1959)Google Scholar, comment on Bata v. Hill (Del. Ch. 1958).Google Scholar

See generally Smit, , International Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel in the United States, 9 U. C. L. A. L. Rev. 44 (1962).Google Scholar, and von Mehren, and Trautman, , 920–943Google Scholar (and cases cited).

201. Andrews, , Situs of Intangibles in Suits Against Nonresident Claimants, 49 Yale L. J. 241, 248 (1939).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

202. Note, Attachment of Corporate Stock: The Conflicting Approaches of Delaware and the Uniform Stock Transfer Act, 73 Harvard L. Rev., 1579 (1960).Google Scholar

203. Andrews, 253 citing Cameron v. Penn Mutual Life Ins. Co., 111Google Scholar N.J. Eq. 24, 161 All. 55 (1932) and Perry v. Young, 133 Tenn. 522, 182 S.W. 577 (1916).Google Scholar

204. Simmons, , Conflict of Laws and Constitutional Law in Respect to Intangibles, 26 Calif. L. Rev. 91, 92 (1937).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

205. This procedural technique can be compared to a certain extent with the “déclinatoire de compétence” in Belgian civil procedure.

206. Homburger, and Laufer, , Appearance and jurisdictional Motions in New York, 14 Buffalo L. Rev. 387, (1965).Google Scholar

207. id.

208. id., 388.

209. id., 389.

210. id., 389.

211. Bachrach, Enforcement of Judgments Obtained Under Statutes Typified as “Long Arm” and “Single Act” Statutes-In Belgium, in the American Bar Association Proceedings, Section of International and Comparative Law, 208 (1964).Google Scholar

212. Jones, , International Judicial Assistance: Procedural Chaos and a Program for Reform, 62 Yale L.J., 515 (1953).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

213. Pub. L. No. 244, 88th Cong., 1st. Sess. (Dec. 30, 1963), 77 Stat. 775. For the text of the Draft Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra-judicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, see Nadelmann and Reese, Documents, The Tenth Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, 13 The American Journal of Comparative Law, 620 (1964). This Convention has been signed by the United States on November 15, 1965, and ratification seems to be contemplated.

214. Travers v. Holey, (1953) p. 246 (C.A.).Google Scholar

215. For the 1963 statistics see United Nations Yearbook of International Trade, 81 (1965).Google Scholar