Conflict of Laws Private International Law vs Public International Law

International Law
Outline 1 PUBLIC PRIVATE
Governs states in Governs individuals in
I. Preliminaries
their relationship their private
Private International Law / Conflict of Laws
amongst transactions which
-that part of municipal law which governs cases involving a themselves involve a foreign
foreign element element
-those universal pronciples of right and justice which Parties States Individuals
govern the courts of one state having before them cases Internationally Corporations
involving the operation and effect of laws of another recognized orgs
state/country R.C. Minor Sources of -custom, -internal law of each
-that part of the law of each state or nation which law -treaty, state
determines whether, in dealing with a legal situation, the -gen. principles of Except: those
law of some other state or nation will be recognized, given law recognized by governed by a treaty
effect, or applied Am. Jur. civilized nations and
-juridical decisions
Civil/Family Code provisions governing Conflict of Laws -teaching of the
most highly
-Art. 15 Nationality Law Principle qualified publicists
-Art. 16, Par. 1 lex citus rule Transactions State-to-state Private transactions
- Art. 16, Par. 2 system of universal succession Governed Govt-to-Govt bet. individuals
- Art. 17, Par. 1 lex loci contractus matters
Remedies -diplomatic protest -all remedies
-negotiation provided by
-arbitration municipal laws od the
-adjudication by state
filing cases before i.e. resort to courts
intl tribunals and administrative
-use of force tribunals
-war

1
 Necessity for Private International Law
- To provide rational and valid rules or guidelines in
deciding cases where either the parties, events or
transactions are linked to more than one jurisdiction
- To promote stability and uniformity of solution
provided by the laws and courts if each state called
upon to decide conflicts cases
Hilton v. Guyot (on sovereignty and conflict of laws)
FACTS: Guyot, a Frenchman, sued Hilton, an American, in a
French court for the recovery of a sum of money. The
French court rendered judgment in favor of Guyot. Plaintiff
brought the action to a US court to recover the sum of
money adjudged by the French court to be due from the
defendant to the plaintiff.
ISSUE: Whether or not a judgment of a foreign nations
court entitled to full credit and has a conclusive effect
when sued to other nation.
HELD: No law has any effect, of its own force, beyond the
limits of the sovereignty from which its authority is derived.
The extent to which the law of one nation, as put in force
within its territory, whether by executive order, by
legislative act, or by judicial decree shall be allowed to
operate within the dominion of another nation depends
upon the comity of nations.
A foreign judgment is not entitled to full faith and credit
when sued upon another nation, but is a prima facie
evidence only of the claim.
II.Jurisdiction
Kinds of Jurisdiction relevant to Conflict of Laws problems
a) JUDICIAL JURISDICTION the power or authority of
the court to try a case, render judgment and execute it
in accordance with law
BASIS OF THE EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL JURISDICTION
a) Jurisdiction over the person w/c is based on forum-
defendant contracts
b) Jurisdiction over the res w/c is based on forum-
property contracts
c) Jurisdiction over the subject matter
In the absence of a jurisdictional basis, a court should
not try a case. If it does, its judgment is considered void
b) LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION the ability of the state to
promulgate laws and enforce them on all persons and
property within its territory
Jurisdictional questions to be taken into account by courts
in dealing with Conflict of Laws
1) Has the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant or over his property?
2) Has the court acquire jurisdiction over the subject
matter/compentency?
3) Has the suit been brought in the proper venue in cases
where a foreign element is involved?
4) Is there a statute or doctrine in which a court otherwise
qualified to try the case may or may not refuse to
entertain it?
2

JURISDICTION OVER PERSONS
How obtained by the voluntary appearance of a party
and his submission to authority
a) over the person of the plaintiff the moment he
invokes the aid of the court by filing a suit
b) over the person of the defendant when he enters his
appearance (except when appearance os for the purpose
of protesting jurisdiction of the court)
OR is served with the legal process within the state
-either personal or substituted service (RULE 14, ROC)
Section 6. Service in person on defendant. Whenever
practicable, the summons shall be served by handling a copy
thereof to the defendant in person, or, if he refuses to receive
and sign for it, by tendering it to him. (7a)
Section 7. Substituted service. If, for justifiable causes, the
defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time as
provided in the preceding section, service may be effected
(a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's
residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then
residing therein, or
(b) by leaving the copies at defendant's office or regular place of
business with some competent person in charge thereof.
Summons
Extraterritorial Service
Sec 6, 7, 15, Rule 14 Rules of Court
Action in rem vs Action in Personam
Real vs Personal Actions
JURISDICTION OVER PROPERTY
How obtained seizure of the property under a legal
process OR institution of legal proceedings wherein the
courts power over the property is recognized or made
effective
LONG-ARM STATUTES Statutes that specify the kinds of
contacts upon which jurisdiction will be asserted
Pennoyer v. Neff
Fact Summary. Defendant Neff was being sued by Mitchell
in Oregon for unpaid legal fees. A default judgment was
entered against Defendant for his failure to come to court or
otherwise resist the lawsuit, despite the fact that he was not
personally served with process, nor was a resident of
Oregon. Later, in an attempt to collect upon his judgment,
Mitchell attached land located in Oregon belonging to
Defendant, and had it sold to Plaintiff Pennoyer through a
Sheriffs sale.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Proceedings in a court of law to
determine the personal rights and obligations of parties over
whom the court has not jurisdiction are invalid for want of
due process of law.
Facts. Mitchell, a lawyer, sued Defendant, his client, in
Oregon state court for unpaid legal fees.
At the time Defendant was a non-resident of the state who
was not personally served with process. Constructive
service was issued upon Defendant by publication.
Defendant did not come to court or otherwise resist the
lawsuit, and default judgment was entered against him.
3
After the default judgment, Defendant acquired 300 acres of
land in Oregon. To satisfy his judgment against Defendant,
Mitchell had the sheriff seize and sell Defendants land. The
land was purchased by Plaintiff, who received a sheriffs
deed as evidence of title. The sheriff then turned the sale
proceeds over to Mitchell. Shortly after the sheriffs sale,
Defendant discovered what had happened to his land and
brought suit against Plaintiff to recover the land. This appeal
followed after Defendant lost his suit against Plaintiff.
Issue. Can judgments obtained against non-residents who
fail to appear in court be sustained by default judgments
where service of process is accomplished solely through
publication (i.e. constructive service)?
Is constructive service sufficient notice to attach property
within the forum state owned by a non-resident?
Held. No. The personal judgment recovered in the state
court of Oregon against Plaintiff was without validity, and the
decision of the Court of Appeals overturning that judgment
was affirmed.
When a suit is merely in personam (i.e. against a person),
constructive service through publication upon a non-
resident is ineffective.
No state can exercise direct jurisdiction and authority over
persons or property without its territory. However, a state
may subject property within its boundaries to the payments
of its citizens, even when the land is owned by a non-
resident, without infringing upon the sovereignty of the state
of residency of the landowner.
Discussion. Here the Supreme Court of the United States
is distinguishing between suits in personam, and in rem. An
in personamSUIT is a suit against a person, whose
purpose is to determine the personal rights and obligations
of the defendant. An in rem action, meanwhile, is an action
where jurisdiction pertains to property. Thus the court
reasoned that constructive service is sufficient to inform
parties of action taken against any properties owned by
them within the forum state, because property is always in
possession of the owner, and seizure of the property will
inform the owner of legal action taken against him.
Intl Shoe v. Washington
Brief Fact Summary. Defendant was an out of state
company that employed salesmen within the state of
Washington. Washington sued Defendant to recover unpaid
unemployment taxes and served Defendant in two ways: (1)
by mail and (2) by serving one of its salesmen within the
state. Defendant appealed from a verdict for Washington,
claiming that Washington had no personal jurisdiction over
Defendant.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. In order for a state to exercise
personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the defendant must
have such minimum contacts with the state so that
exercising jurisdiction over the defendant would not offend
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Facts. International Shoe Co., Defendant, was a company
based in Delaware with an office in St. Louis, Missouri.
Defendant employed salesmen that resided in Washington
to sell their product in the state of Washington.
4
 Defendant regularly shipped orders to the salesmen who
accepted them, the salesmen would display the products at
places in Washington, and the salesmen were
compensated by commission for the sale of the products.
The salesmen were also reimbursed for the cost of renting
the places of business in Washington.
Washington sued Defendant after Defendant failed to make
contributions to an unemployment compensation fund
exacted by state statutes.
The Washington statute said that the commissioner could
issue personal service if Defendant was found within the
state, or by mailing it to Defendant if Defendant was not in
the state.
The notice of assessment was served upon Defendants
salesperson and a copy of the notice was mailed to
Defendant.
Defendant appeared specially, moving to set aside the order
that service upon the salesperson was proper service.
Defendant also argued that
1)it did not do business in the state, that there was no
agent upon which service could be made, and that
Defendant did not furnish employment within the meaning
of the statute.
2)that the statute violated the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment and imposed a prohibitive burden
of interstate commerce.
The trial court found for Washington and the Supreme Court
of Washington affirmed, reasoning that the continuous flow
of Defendants product into Washington was sufficient to
establish personal jurisdiction. Defendant appealed.
Issue. Is service of process upon Defendants agent
sufficient notice when the corporations activities result in a
large volume of interstate business so that the corporation
receives the protection of the laws of the state and the suit
is related to the activities which make the corporation
present?
Held. Yes. Affirmed. The general rule is that in order to have
jurisdiction with someone outside the state, the person must
have certain minimum contacts with it such that the
maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions
of fair play and substantial justice.
For a corporation, the minimum contacts required are not
just continuous and systematic activities but also those that
give rise to the liabilities sued on.
Defendant could have sued someone in Washington. It was
afforded the protection of the laws of that state, and
therefore it should be subject to suit.
If a party has "minimum contacts" in a state, that corporation
is subject to the jurisdiction of that state as long as it does not
offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice".
o Test for "minimum contacts" jurisdiction:
Does the defendant come within the terms of
the applicable long-arm statute?
Does the defendant have "minimum
contacts" with the forum state such that the
assertion of jurisdiction would not violate the
Due Process Clause?
Has the defendant "purposely
availed" itself of the privilege of
5
 conducting activities in the forum
state, thereby invoking the benefits
and protections of the state's laws?
Does the lawsuit arise out of or
related to the defendant's purposeful
contacts with the forum or, if it does
not, are the defendant's forum
contacts so extensive that no such
relationship is necessary?
Would the exercise of jurisdiction be unfair
and unreasonable, taking into account the
interests of the defendant, the forum state, the
plaintiff, and other states that may have an
interest in the matter?
Shaffer v. Heitner
Fact Summary. Plaintiff stockholder brought a newspaper.
shareholders derivative action in Delaware state court
against Defendants, corporations incorporated in Delaware
with their principal place of business in Arizona, and
corporate officers of the corporations (Defendants). Plaintiff
moved to sequester Defendants property, which was stock
in the company, located in Delaware as defined by the
Delaware statute. Defendants moved to quash the
summons and to vacate the sequestration order, arguing
that both exercising personal jurisdiction and seizing
Defendants property violated due process.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. When the only contact the
defendant has with the forum state is the location of property
as defined by statute in the forum state, the forum lacks
personal jurisdiction over the defendant unless the minimum
contacts test of International Shoe is satisfied.
Facts. Plaintiff, a stockholder for Greyhound Corp., a
company incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of
business in Arizona, sued Greyhound Corp., Greyhound
Lines, Inc., (a subsidiary of Greyhound Corp.) and present
and former officers of the two companies for violating duties
to Greyhound Corp. by causing it to be liable for damages
in an antitrust suit and a fine in a criminal contempt action in
Oregon.
Plaintiff filed a motion for sequestration of the officers stock.
Under a Delaware statute, Delaware is the situs of all stock
in Delaware corporations. The stock was seized.
Defendants were notified by certified mail of the
sequestration and notice was published in a Delaware
Defendants entered a special appearance so they could
move to quash service of process and vacate the
sequestration order.
Defendant argued that
1) the order violated due process and therefore the property
could not be attached in Delaware.
2) that they did not have the minimum contacts with
Delaware required to establish jurisdiction under
International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66
S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945).
3) that the sequestration procedures were inconsistent with
the Sniadach cases (see Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp.,
395 U.S. 337, 89 S.Ct. 1820, 23 L.Ed.2d 349 (1969)).
6
The Court of Chancery found for Plaintiff and the Supreme
Court of Delaware affirmed the Court of Chancery. The
Supreme Court of Delaware reasoned that the Sniadach
cases involved default judgments and not compelling a
party to appear.
This court furthered reasoned that sequestration
procedures help to adjudicate claims of mismanagement
against Delaware companies, and do not cause permanent
deprivation of property to their shareholders. Defendants
appealed.
Issue. In order for the forum state to exercise in rem
jurisdiction on a nonresident, must the nonresident have
minimum contacts with the forum state such that the
defendant has purposefully availed itself of the benefits of
that states laws? If so, must the cause of action be
sufficiently related to the contacts the nonresident has with
the forum state?
Held. Yes to both. Judgment reversed. In rem is not a
proceeding against the property, it is a proceeding against
a persons interest in the property. You need to give an
owner of property reasonable and appropriate notice of an
in rem proceeding so that he or she recognizes that such a
proceeding directly affects his or her interests. Having
property in a state does not give the state jurisdiction over
causes of action unrelated to the property unless the person
also passes the minimum contacts test articulated in the
International Shoe decision. If it is unconstitutional to
exercise jurisdiction over the person directly then it should
be unconstitutional to assert jurisdiction indirectly. Plaintiffs
argument that Delaware has an interest in asserting
jurisdiction over corporate fiduciaries is not established by
Delaware law. Delaware law determines that it has
jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants property
is in Delaware; and not due to their status as corporate
fiduciaries. First, the statute authorizing jurisdiction does not
specifically apply to stockholder derivative actions.
Moreover, Plaintiffs inability to secure jurisdiction over
seven of the defendants because they didnt have property
in Delaware shows that there is no necessary relationship
between corporate fiduciaries and stockholders. In addition,
Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Delaware is a fair forum.
Plaintiff must demonstrate more than the applicability of
Delawares laws to the controversy to establish a basis for
jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs argument that Defendants have received benefits
from Delaware laws only demonstrates that it would be
appropriate for Delaware law to govern obligations between
Defendant and stockholders. This argument does not
require that Delaware be permitted to exercise jurisdiction,
especially considering its lack of a long-arm statute.
Concurrence. Justice Stevens: The majority should not
broadly eliminate in rem jurisdiction by stating that there is
no personal jurisdiction if the only contact the defendant has
with the forum state is property located in the state. There
are other means of acquiring jurisdiction over local actions
that may be unintentionally limited by this broad language.
Justice Brennan (concurring in part and dissenting in part):
The Delaware sequestration statute embodies quasi in rem
jurisdiction that is no longer valid. The parties did not make
the minimum contacts test an issue so the court should not
have decided this issue. There is no proper factual record
for determining the level of contacts in this case. This is also
a constitutional question, and this decision will reach to all
the state statutes that permit quasi in rem action through
7
sequestration of property. The general rule is that the forum
state has jurisdiction over the directors and officers of a
corporation chartered by the state in a shareholder
derivative action. A states valid substantive interests are
considerations in assessing the constitutionality of
exercising jurisdiction. Delaware has interests in preventing
local corporations from being victims of foreign stockholders
and in regulating its own corporations. In addition,
jurisdiction can be based on out-of-state activities that have
foreseeable effects in the forum state. Delawares failure to
express an interest in corporate fiduciaries does not pertain
to the minimum contacts analysis. In addition, there was
purposeful availment of the forums laws because the
corporate officers entered business relationships with
Greyhounds stockholders pursuant to the laws of
Delaware.
Discussion. As the concurring opinions illustrate, it is highly
unlikely a court has personal jurisdiction over a non-resident
defendant that is absent from the forum state when the only
contact is property owned by the defendant located within
the forum state. Even if the property is connected to the suit,
minimum contacts must still be established in compliance
with the International Shoe test.
JURISDICTION OVER SUBJECT MATTER
How determined- Constitution and statutory laws.
- Cannot be conferred by consent of the parties
How does a local court deal with a conflicts problem
1) Dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction or on the
ground of forum non conveniens, or
2) Assume jurisdiction and apply either forum or foreign
law
Idonah v. Perkins
Facts: July 5, 1938, respondent Eugene Perkins filed a
complaint in the CFI- Manila against the Benguet Consolidated
Mining Company for the recovery of a sum consisting of
dividends which have been declared and made payable on
shares of stock registered in his name, payment of which was
being withheld by the company, and for the recognition of his
right to the control and disposal of said shares to the exclusion
of all others. The company alleged, by way of defense that the
withholding of plaintiffs right to the disposal and control of the
shares was due to certain demands made with respect to said
shares by the petitioner Idonah Perkins, and by one Engelhard.
Eugene Perkins included in his modified complaint as parties
defendants petitioner, Idonah Perkins, and Engelhard. Eugene
Perkins prayed that petitioner Idonah Perkins and H.
Engelhard be adjudged without interest in the shares of stock in
question and excluded from any claim they assert thereon.
Summons by publication were served upon the nonresident
defendants Idonah Perkins and Engelhard. Engelhard filed his
answer. Petitioner filed her answer with a crosscomplaint in
which she sets up a judgment allegedly obtained by her against
respondent Eugene Perkins, from the SC of the State of New
York, wherein it is declared that she is the sole legal owner and
entitled to the possession and control of the shares of stock in
question with all the cash dividends declared thereon by the
Benguet Consolidated Mining Company.
Idonah Perkins filed a demurrer thereto on the ground that the
court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the action, because
the alleged judgment of the SC of the State of New York is res
judicata. Petitioners demurrer was overruled, thus this
petition.
8
Issue: not the respondent judge in the course of the proceedings will
WON in view of the alleged judgment entered in favor of the give validity and efficacy to the New York judgment set up by
petitioner by the SC of New York and which is claimed by her to the petitioner in her cross-complaint is a question that goes to
be res judicata on all questions raised by the respondent, the merits of the controversy and relates to the rights of the
Eugene Perkins, the local court has jurisdiction over the subject parties as between each other, and not to the jurisdiction or
matter of the action. power of the court. The test of jurisdiction is whether or not the
tribunal has power to enter upon the inquiry, not whether its
Ruling conclusion in the course of it is right or wrong. If its decision is
By jurisdiction over the subject matter is meant the nature of erroneous, its judgment can be reversed on appeal; but its
the cause of action and of the relief sought, and this is conferred determination of the question, which the petitioner here
by the sovereign authority which organizes the court, and is to anticipates and seeks to prevent, is the exercise by that court
be sought for in general nature of its powers, or in authority and the rightful exercise of its jurisdiction.
specially conferred. In the present case, the amended complaint
filed by the respondent, Eugene Perkins alleged calls for the
Petition denied.
adjudication of title to certain shares of stock of the Benguet
Consolidated Mining Company and the granting of affirmative
reliefs, which fall within the general jurisdiction of the CFI-
Manila. Similarly CFI- Manila is empowered to adjudicate the
several demands contained in petitioners crosscomplaint.
Idonah Perkins in her crosscomplaint brought suit against
Eugene Perkins and the Benguet Consolidated Mining
Company upon the alleged judgment of the SC of the State of
New York and asked the court below to render judgment
enforcing that New York judgment, and to issue execution
thereon. This is a form of action recognized by section 309 of
the Code of Civil Procedure (now section 47, Rule 39, Rules of
Court) and which falls within the general jurisdiction of the CFI-
Manila, to adjudicate, settle and determine.

The petitioner expresses the fear that the respondent judge may
render judgment annulling the final, subsisting, valid
judgment rendered and entered in this petitioners favor by the
courts of the State of New York, which decision is res judicata
on all the questions constituting the subject matter of civil case
and argues on the assumption that the respondent judge is
without jurisdiction to take cognizance of the cause. Whether or