green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 5×
15.6 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2006 ·
…a prince, by acquiring private property in a foreign country, may possibly be considered as subjecting that property to the territorial jurisdiction; he may be considered as so far laying down the prince, and assuming the character of a private individual.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1900 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1900
1963
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Wultz v. Bank of China Ltd.
one sovereign being in no respect amenable to another; and being bound by obligations of the highest character not to degrade the dignity of his nation, by placing himself or its sovereign rights within the jurisdiction of another....
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Odeh
the jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. it is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Permanent Mission of India to the United Nations v. City of New York
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
a prince, by acquiring private property in a foreign country, may possibly be considered as subjecting that property to the territorial jurisdiction, he may be considered as so far laying down the prince, and assuming the character of a private individual
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
City of New York v. Permanent Mission of India to the United Nations
a prince, by acquiring private property in a foreign country, may possibly be considered as subjecting that property to the territorial jurisdiction; he may be considered as so far laying down the prince, and assuming the character of a private individual.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
City of New York v. the Permanent Mission of India to the United Nations
a prince, by acquiring private property in a foreign country, may possibly be considered as subjecting that property to the territorial jurisdiction; he may be considered as so far laying down the prince, and assuming the character of a private individual.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Upper Skagit Tribe v. Lundgren
Since 1812, this Court has “enter- tain[ed] no doubt” that “the title to land can be acquired and lost only in the manner prescribed by the law of the place where such land is situate[d].” United States v. Crosby, 7 Cranch 115, 116 (1812) (Story, J.).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Richard D. Greene and Donna J. Greene, Husband and Wife, Debtors, Ross Richardson, Chapter 7, Trustee-Appellee v. Mt. Adams Furniture
(2×)
The Court acknowledged that the extent to which comity would be extended between sovereigns had changed over the years. 19 It is fair to infer that if the immunity defense Nevada asserts today had been raised in 1812 when The Schooner Exchange [ 11 U.S. 116 , 7 Cranch 116 , 3 L.Ed. 287 ] was decided, or earlier when the Constitution was being framed, the defense would have been sustained by the California courts. 20 Id. at 417, 99 S.Ct. at 1186 . 21 The question in Hall was whether there was a constitutional impediment to California's application of its own law as it existed in 1968, when the …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re the Tax Appeal of Grayco Land Escrow, Ltd.
Munday v. Wisconsin Trust Co., 252 U.S. 499 (1920); United States v. Crosby, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 115, 116 (1812); see County of Kauai v. Holt, 17 Haw. 146 (1905); see also Hilo Sugar Co. v. Minister of Finance, 7 Haw. 665 *451 (1889) and Carter v. Hill, 31 Haw. 264 (1930); 71 Am.
cited
Cited "see"
WhatsApp Inc. v. NSO Group Technologies Limited
See id. at 311 (citing 10 Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116 , 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812)).
cited
Cited "see"
Mobil Cerro Negro, Ltd. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
See 11 U.S. 116 , 7 Cranch 116 , 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela v. Helmerich & Payne Int'l Drilling Co.
See Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116 , 136-137, 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812) ; see also Verlinden, 461 U.S., at 493 , 103 S.Ct. 1962 (explaining that the Act "comprehensively regulat[es] the amenability of foreign nations to suit in the United States").
discussed
Cited "see"
Moriah v. Bank of China Ltd.
See The Schooner Exch. v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. 116, 137 , 7 Cranch 116 , 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812) ("One sovereign being in no respect amenable to another; and being bound by obligations of the highest character not to degrade the dignity of his nation, by placing himself or its sovereign rights within the jurisdiction of another....”); Belhas v. Ya’alon, 515 F.3d 1279, 1293 (D.C.Cir.2008). .
cited
Cited "see"
Export-Import Bank of Republic of China v. Grenada
See Samantar, 560 U.S. at 311-12 , 130 S.Ct. 2278 (citing Schooner Exch. v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116 , 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812)).
cited
Cited "see"
Sikhs for Justice v. Singh
See The Schooner Exch. v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. 116, 136-41 , 7 Cranch 116 , 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812) (discussing common-law immunity of nations and “princes” interchangeably).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rimi v. Obama
See Kiyemba v. Obama, 561 F.3d 509, 515 (D.C.Cir.2009) (“It is a longstanding principle of our jurisprudence that ‘[t]he jurisdiction of [a] nation, within its own territory, is necessarily exclusive and absolute.’ ” (quoting Schooner Exch. v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116, 136 , 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812)); id. (“[Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 , 128 S.Ct. 2207 , 171 L.Ed.2d 1 (2008)] therefore bars a court from issuing a writ of habeas corpus to shield a detainee from prosecution and detention by another sovereign according to its laws.”); see also Idema v. Rice, 478 F.Supp.2d 47, 52 (D…
discussed
Cited "see"
Wultz v. Bank of China Ltd.
See The Schooner Exch. v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. 116, 137 , 7 Cranch 116 , 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812) ("One sovereign being in no respect amenable to another; and being bound by obligations of the highest character not to degrade the dignity of his nation, by placing himself or its sovereign rights within the jurisdiction of another.... ”). .
cited
Cited "see"
Ashraf-Hassan v. Embassy of France in the United States
See id. (citing The Schooner Exch. v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. 116, 137 , 7 Crunch 116, 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812)).
discussed
Cited "see"
A.R. International Anti-Fraud Systems, Inc. v. Pretoria National Central Bureau of Interpol
See, The Schooner Exchange v. M’Faddon, 7 Cranch 116, 136, 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812) (Marshall, C.J.) (the United States impliedly waived jurisdiction over certain activities of foreign sovereigns because the jurisdiction of a nation within its own territory "is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself.”).
cited
Cited "see"
Rux v. Republic of Sudan
See id. at 486 , 103 S.Ct. at 1967 (citing The Schooner Exchange v. M’Faddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116 , 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812)).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Kun Yun Jho
See Schooner Exchange v. M’Faddon, 7 Cranch 116 , 11 U.S. 116, 136 , 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812).
cited
Cited "see"
Patrickson v. Dole Food Co.
See id. (quoting The Schooner Exch. v. M’Faddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116, 146 , 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812)).
cited
Cited "see"
Jacob Sampson v. Federal Republic of Germany and Claims Conference, Article 2 Fund
See id.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Milton Gatlin
Indeed, until at least the early part of the twentieth century, it was generally accepted that “every nation possesses exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction within its own territory.” Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws § 18, at 21 (Boston, Little, Brown, and Co. 6th ed. 1865) (1834); see The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. (7 Crunch) 116, 136, 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812) (Marshall, C.J.) (“The jurisdiction of the nation, within its own territory, is necessarily exclusive and absolute; it is susceptible of no limitation, not imposed by itself.”); Story, supra, § 20, at …
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Bin Laden
See The Schooner Exchange v. M’Faddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116, 136 , 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812) (Marshall, C.J.) (“The jurisdiction of the nation, within its own territory, is necessarily exclusive and absolute; it is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gavle v. Little Six, Inc.
(2×)
See The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116 , 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hugo Princz v. Federal Republic of Germany
(2×)
See The Schooner Exchange, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) at 136-42 , 3 L.Ed. 287 .
cited
Cited "see"
Vincente B. Chuidian v. Philippine National Bank, and Raul Daza, Vincente B. Chuidian, and Philippine Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corporation, Intervenor v. Philippine National Bank, and Raul Daza
See The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116, 136 , 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812).
cited
Cited "see"
Chuidian v. Philippine National Bank
See The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116, 136 , 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812).
cited
Cited "see"
Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center v. Hellenic Republic
See The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116, 136 , 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812) (recognizing the “perfect equality and absolute independence of sovereigns”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Amerada Hess Shipping Corporation v. Argentine Republic, United Carriers, Inc. v. Argentine Republic
(2×)
See The Schooner Exchange v. M’Faddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116, 146 , 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812).
cited
Cited "see"
Republic of Philippines v. Marcos
See The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116, 145 , 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812); Sucharitkul, State Immunities and Trading Activities in International Law 27-28, 32-34, 47-50 (1959).
cited
Cited "see"
Republic of the Philippines v. Marcos
See The Schooner Exchange v. M’Faddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116, 145 , 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812); Sucharitkul, State Immunities and Trading Activities in International Law 27-28, 32-34, 47-50 (1959).
cited
Cited "see"
Arango v. Guzman Travel Advisors
See The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116, 136-37 , 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812).
cited
Cited "see"
Arango v. Guzman Travel Advisors
See The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116, 136-37 , 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812).
cited
Cited "see"
Lois Frolova v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
See The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116 , 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812).
cited
Cited "see"
Braka v. Bancomer, S.A.
See The Schooner Exchange v. M’Faddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116 , 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gregory Allen Persinger v. Islamic Republic of Iran
(2×)
See The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116, 136 , 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812).
cited
Cited "see"
In the Matter of Extradition of Sven Ulf Ingemar Assarsson
See The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116 , 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Darroch
See Schooner Exchange v. M’Faddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116, 136 , 3 L.Ed. 287, 293 (1812).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. County of Arlington
See The EXCHANGE, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116, 138 , 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. County of Arlington, Virginia, and Bennie L. Fletcher, Jr., Treasurer of the County of Arlington, Virginia, United States of America v. County of Arlington, Virginia, and Bennie L. Fletcher, Jr., Treasurer of the County of Arlington, Virginia
See The EXCHANGE, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116, 138 , 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812).
cited
Cited "see"
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.
See Schooner Exchange v. McFadden, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116, 136 , 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812). 37 .
cited
Cited "see"
McConahy v. City of London Corporation
See The Schooner Exchange v. M’Faddon, 7 Cranch 116 , 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812).
cited
Cited "see"
Government of France v. Isbrandtsen-Moller Co.
See, The Schooner Exchange v. M’Faddon et al., 1812, 7 Cranch 116 , 3 L.Ed. 287 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Robinson v. Campbell
See United States v. Crosby, 7 Cranch 115 .] [(a)] In Buller's Nisi Prius 110, it is laid down, that in ejectment, "if the defendant prove a title out of the lessor, it is sufficient, although he have no title himself; but he ought to prove a subsisting title out of the lessor, for producing an ancient lease for 1000 years will not be sufficient, unless he likewise prove possession, under such lease, within twenty years." The same doctrine is stated in Runnington on Ejectments 343; *225] and the case of England v. *Slade, 4 T.R. 682, is relied on to support it.
discussed
Cited "see"
Robinson v. Campbell
See United States v. Crosby, 7 Cranch, 115 In Buller’s Nisi Prius, 110, it is laid down, that in •ejectment, “if the defendant prove a title out of the lessor, it is sufficient, although he have no title himself; but he ought to prove a subsisting title out of the lessor, for producing an ancient lease for 1000 years will not be sufficient unless he likewise prove possession under such lease within twenty years.” The same doctrine is stated in Runnington on Ejectments, 343. and thé case of England v. Slade, 4 T.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Mobil Cerro Negro Ltd. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480, 486 , 103 S.Ct. 1962 , 76 L.Ed.2d 81 (1983); see also The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116 , 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Ibrahim Ahmed Al-Hamdi, United States of America v. Ibrahim Ahmed Al-Hamdi
"The privilege extended to an individual diplomat is merely incidental to the benefit conferred on the government he represents.” Id.; see also The Exchange, 7 Cranch 116 , 11 U.S. 116, 138 , 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812) (recognizing diplomatic immunity serves the interests of the foreign sovereign because "without such exemption, every sovereign would hazard his own dignity by employing a public minister abroad”); Abdulaziz v. Metropolitan Dade County, 741 F.2d 1328, 1330 (11th Cir.1984).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The United States
v.
Jonah Crosby
v.
Jonah Crosby
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 24, 1812.
Cited by 74 opinions | Published
THIS case is fully stated in the following opinión,of this Court, which was delivered by
Story, Justice, on the 24th of February, judges being present. all . the
A writ of intrusion ivas brought by the United. States against the Defendant in error to recover pos'sesbion of an undivided part of certain land lying, within' the district of Maine. Upon the trial of the cause in the district Court of that district, a special verdict was found by the jury, upon which the same Court gave judgment in favor of the Defendant in error. This judgment wps afterwards affirmed in the Circuit Court of Massachusetts, and is now before the Supreme Court for a final decision.
By the special verdict it appears that the claim of the United States tó the. land in controversy is under on*[*116] Nathaniel Dowse, who derived his title, if any, from an instrument stated at large'in the same verdict, and executed in His favor by one John Nelson. The instrnment is 'without a seal and was executed at the Island of Grenada» in the West Indies, before a notary public, according to the mode prescribed, by the existing laws, to pass real estate in that colony — and both parties were, at that time residents therein.
By the laws of Massachusetts, no estate of freehold in land can be conveyed unless by a deed or conveyance under the hand and seal of the party — nod to perfect the title as against strangers, it is further requisite that the deed should be acknowledged before a proper magistrate, and recorded in the registry of deeds for the county where the land lies.
The question presented for consideration, is whether the lex loci contractus or the lex led. rei sitae is to govern in the disposal of real estates.
'The; Court entertain no doubt on the subject; and are clearly of opinion that the title to land can be acquired and lost only in the manner prescribed by the law of the place where such land is situate. The judgment of the Circuit Court must, therefore, he affirmed,.