suit-at-law, or taking any steps whatsoever against Hullet & Co., for the purpose thereby of obtaining re-payment of the moneys so paid to or deposited with them, Hullet & Co., as aforesaid; and that Hullet & Co. might also in like manner be restrained from paying over the moneys last mentioned to the said Don Justo José de Machado, or parting with the same, without the direction of the said Court of Chancery in that behalf; and that Hullet & Co. might set forth the claims (if any) which they had, or claimed to be entitled to, upon the said moneys so paid to or deposited with them as aforesaid, or upon the said funds so received by the said Don Justo José de Machado by virtue of the said Convention of the 30th day of April, 1822, as aforesaid, and the particulars thereof, and how they make out the same, and that the said claims might be disposed of

*by the said Court of Chancery;' and the bill prayed process [*550]

against Hullet & Co., and against Machado, when he should come within the jurisdiction.

"Machado did not appear, but Hullet & Co. appeared to the said bill, and on the 31st day of January last filed a demurrer thereto, and they thereby for cause of demurrer showed that the respondent had not by his said bill made such a case as entitled him in a Court of Equity to any relief against them, or either of them; and for further cause of demurrer, they thereby showed, that the plaintiff had not made the said Achilles de Pereira a party thereto, nor prayed process against him; neither had the plaintiff made parties to the said bill, nor prayed process against any or all of the persons who, according to the statements in the said bill, had or were entitled to claim a beneficial interest in the moneys in the said bill mentioned, or any part thereof.

"The demurrer came on to be argued on the 22nd day of March, 1828, before the Lord Chancellor, by whom it was overruled; and against this order the defendants, Hullet & Co., appealed to the House of Lords:

1st, Because it has never been held that a foreign Sovereign can sue in courts of equity in England; and according to the principles of such Courts, such a plaintiff ought not to be allowed to sue therein, inasmuch as by no possibility can process be issued with effect, or equity done, or a decree enforced against him.

"2dly, Because the pretended rights on which the plaintiff in this bill relies are rights which he claims merely by virtué of his prerogative as King of Spain; and it is not according to the law or constitution of England, that an English Court of Equity should be made instrumental in enforcing in England the prerogative of a foreign Sovereign.

"3dly, Because the pretended right of the King of Spain to the moneys sought to be recovered by the bill arises out of a Treaty with France, which was inconsistent with the existing relations between each of those countries and His Majesty the King of this country; and an English Court of Equity, therefore, will not lend its aid to enforce any such pretended right.

"4thly, Because this is a bill in equity, according to the statement. of which, not one of the parties before the Court has any right to the

beneficial enjoyment of the property which is the subject of the suit, and no decree could be made upon it which would do complete justice.

"5thly, Because the bill does not bring before the Court all the parties interested in the matters of the suit, and in the questions raised by the statement in the bill, nor any persons who represent those parties or their interests; and particularly because Achilles de Pereira is not made a party to the suit, though the bill states that the moneys of which the plaintiff seeks to obtain possession, were paid to or deposited with these appellants in the name of the said Achilles de Pereira.

*The cause came on for hearing on the 11th and 18th June,

[*551] 1828; Pepys and Russel for the appellants, Wetherell (AttorneyGeneral) and Horne for the respondent.

"Lord Lyndhurst (Chancellor):-The French and Spanish Governments had mutual claims on each other, and they agreed to set the claims of the one against those of the other. What is there fraudulent in that?"

“Lord Redesdale - The French Government was the only one which had any pretence to say that the money should be paid only to the persons whose claims should be established."

"Lord Lyndhurst (Chancellor) :-The money was to be paid to the person whom the king of Spain should nominate; he nominates Machado, who, as his nominee or agent, does receive it, and now he says he is not accountable to the King of Spain. Neither the boards of Commissioners nor the Spanish subjects had anything to do with it in the first instance. We cannot presume that the King of Spain will not distribute the money to those who have claims; we cannot enter into that question at all. Machado received the money under the authority of the King of Spain, and to him he is accountable. Suppose the King of Spain had sent jewels here to be set, and the jeweller refused to restore them, would the King of Spain have no remedy at law to recover them or their value? Why should he not have his remedy here as well as any other foreigner? When he sues here as a plaintiff the Court has complete control over him, and may hold him to all proper terms.'

"Lord Redesdale :- When the King of Scotland was Earl of Huntingdon, could he not maintain his action here against his steward for the rents of that earldom? I am an executor of the Duchess of Brunswick can I not maintain an action here in her name for what is due to her?

"Lord Lyndhurst (Chancellor): It was decided that a foreign Sovereign might sue at law, and why not in equity? At all events, this was a bill of discovery, in which the Courts of Equity had a concurrent jurisdiction. As to parties, it must be admitted, because so stated in bill, that Achilles de Pereira had no interest, and neither the members of the boards, nor the parties who had claims, had anything to do with the funds in the first instance.'

"JUDGMENT.

“Lord Redesdale :- I do not know whether your Lordships have any doubt as to this question, but I have none. I have no doubt but a foreign Sovereign may sue in this country, otherwise there would be a right

without a remedy. He sues here on behalf of his subjects, and if foreign Sovereigns were not allowed to do that, the refusal might be a cause of war. This was a transaction between the Governments of France and Spain, and Machado was the agent appointed by the King of Spain to receive *the money; and if any one had a right to object to pay the [*552] money to him in that capacity, or to any one except the parties who might be ultimately entitled, it was the King of France; but the French Government made no objection, but paid him the money, and he received it as an agent nominated for that purpose by the King of Spain. He deposits the money in the hands of the defendants, Messrs. Hullet & Co.; and one reason-a very slight reason indeed-for their refusal to bring it into Court, according to the prayer of the bill, was, that it had been deposited in the name of Achilles de Pereira, Machado's clerk, who was not made a party. But the defendants well knew that the name of Achilles de Pereira was employed for the purpose of the deposit by Machado, and that he had no interest in the money, and they even admitted that he had no interest in it, and acknowledged that the person to whom they were accountable was Machado. And who was this Machado ?-the agent of the King of Spain, and the defendants knew that the money was that of the King of Spain. The defendants had nothing at all to do with these Treaties. They had the King of Spain's money deposited with them by his agent, and they were bound to answer.

"But supposing other parties had any interest in it, the prayer of the bill merely was, that the money should be paid into Court, and then others who thought they had claims might come and set them up; but that was no reason why the defendants should not make the requisite discovery, and pay the money. There is no ground for the notion that a foreign Sovereign cannot sue in the Courts of this country. It appears to me clear that he can sue, and it would be monstrous injustice if he could not. How otherwise could the King of Spain get the money out of their hands? What had they to do with the due distribution of the money? That was the business of the Sovereign to whom, in the first instance, the money belonged, and to the boards which he had appointed for the purpose. The defendants cannot honestly keep this money and refuse to answer, for they do pretend that it is their own money; and is it not the best and most honest course of proceeding to pay it into Court? If other persons have claims, it is their business to attend to them, and not that of the defendants. Yet I doubt very much whether the Court of Chancery can do more than transfer the money to the King of Spain, or to the boards appointed by him. The claims of the several parties can only be settled by their own Sovereign; and although he may be a trustee for others, it is not by the Court of Chancery here that he can be compelled to execute that trust. The Sovereign himself is the one who has to see to that. It is enough for the defendants that they have the money from Machado, and that he held it as the agent of the King of Spain. It is sufficiently set forth in the bill, that this Achilles de Pereira has no interest in it, and so it is admitted by the demurrer. I move, your Lordships, that the judgment of the Court below be affirmed.'

[*553]

* Lord Lyndhurst (Chancellor) :—I see no reason to alter the opinion which I gave on this question in the Court below.' "Judgment affirmed.

"Sir C. Wetherell (Attorney-General) :-'Ought not the King of Spain to have his costs?'

"Lord Lyndhurst (Chancellor):

We will not disparage the dignity

of the King of Spain by giving him costs.'"

No. 3.

THE KING OF SPAIN (App.) v. HULLET AND WIDDER (Resp.)(n)

"A foreign Sovereign Prince, being declared entitled to sue in the Court of Chancery here in his political capacity, claims the privilege of putting in an answer, by his agent, or without oath or signature, to a cross-bill, filed against him by the defendants to his original bill. Held, that he stands on the same footing with ordinary suitors as to the rules and practice of the Court, and is bound like them, to answer a cross-bill personally and upon oath. "The plaintiffs in the cross-bill having put in a full and sufficient answer to the original bill, which is subsequently amended, obtain an order for a month's time to plead, answer, or demur to the amended bill, after the plaintiff therein should have answered their cross-bill; that order is held good, and is accordingly affirmed."

"THE material allegations and prayer of the appellant's original bill, are stated in the report of a former appeal (1 Dow and Clark, 169,) brought by the respondents against an order of the then Lord Chancellor, overruling their demurrer to that bill. The House of Lords dismissed that appeal, and affirmed the order of the Court below, on the 18th June, 1828, thereby establishing the appellant's right to sue in our Courts of Equity, as a foreign Sovereign, and in his political capacity. The respondents, on the 3d of July following, filed their cross-bill in the Court of Chancery against the appellant and Don Justo de Machado, who had also been made defendant to the appellant's bill, but remained out of the jurisdiction.

“The cross-bill, after reciting the material parts and the prayer of the original bill, stated, and charged in circumstantial detail, that many of the allegations in respect of which the respondents were made parties to the said original bill were not according to the truth, and that the appellant had in his power, and in the power of his agents, servants and ministers, various documents and statements, by which, if produced, it would appear that many of the allegations in said bill were not according to the truth, and by which also the truth of many other circumstances would appear, whereby it would be shown that appellant had no title to relief against these respondents in respect of any of the matters in said bill mentioned : That the appellant had no right to the fund provided by the Treaties in the said original bill mentioned; and that the claims of Spanish subjects. on that fund had been adjudicated in Paris, and openly, and with the

(n) 1 Clark and Finnelly's Reports of Cases in the House of Lords, 333. (Aug.

knowledge of the appellant, sold, and by such sales became the property of French and British subjects: That His Catholic Majesty had unduly got possession of a considerable portion of the trust or indemnity fund, and misapplied it, and that he intended to apply to the *general [*554] purposes of his Government the money alleged in his bill to be deposited with the respondents; and that, as evidence of such intention, His Catholic Majesty and the assembly of the Cortes, in the year 1823, enacted that the said fund should be applied to the exigencies of the Executive Government; and the Spanish finance minister accordingly assigned the said fund to divers persons, by drawing bills of exchange against it, whereby any right assumed by the appellant and Government of Spain of further dealing with it, was wholly extinguished: That by the laws of Spain, the moneys in the said original bill mentioned did not belong to His Catholic Majesty, nor was he entitled to sue for the same; and that so it would appear, if His said Majesty would set forth the law of Spain by which he claimed to have any interest in the said moneys, or any right to sue for the same: That various despatches, communications, and orders had been transmitted by the orders and with the privity of His said Catholic Majesty to the said Justo de Machado, in which it was admitted, or stated, that His Catholic Majesty had no right, or interest, or title in or to any moneys in possession of the said Justo de Machado; and that so it would appear, if all communications or despatches made or sent to the said Justo de Machado, by, or by the orders of, or with the privity of His said Catholic Majesty, or any of his ministers or council, were set forth: That the said moneys, by certain agreements entered into by His Catholic Majesty, or with his authority, did, as against him, and all persons claiming under him, belong exclusively to certain persons having claims under a certain convention, concluded in May, 1823, by which His Catholic Majesty became bound to make full compensation to all British subjects for property or vessels belonging to them, which had been detained or seized by Spanish vessels or Spanish authorities, at any time after the 4th of July, 1808, down to the date of the said Convention; and, in particular, that a great part of the said moneys did belong to respondents, for that the Spanish Government seized, or caused to be seized, subsequently to the 4th July, 1808, two ships, called the Scorpion and the Vulture, with their cargoes, which belonged to these respondents; and that the same were sold by the authority of the King of Spain; and that the whole of the proceeds thereof, amounting to upwards of one million of Spanish dollars, were paid into the royal treasury, and applied to the use of His Catholic Majesty, and that these respondents had a good and valid claim against him to the amount of more than 200,000%., which they were prevented from enforcing against him merely by his royal char

acter.

“The cross-bill further charged, that there was a special necessity that the appellant should be compelled to answer upon oath, all the matters therein before mentioned, inasmuch as the same were material to the respondents' defence in the original suit, *and to produce all writings, papers, and documents in any way relating to any of the matters therein mentioned, which then were in the possession of him, or of any

[*555]