tained in the collision. The question was raised whether the United States could supply the court to pass upon the controversy. The court stated that there was no doubt of its power, as the property, the Belgenland, sought to be taken and sold to satisfy the claim, was in its territorial jurisdiction. In maritime controversies the injured party frequently can conveniently procure redress against the owner of the vessel that did the injury only in this way. The party injured may be domiciled in one nation, the vessel be from another, and her owner be domiciled in still a third. This proceeding against the ship, wherever she may be, gives to the party injured by her a remedy, regardless of the fact that her owners are domiciled elsewhere. Courts are at times reluctant to pass upon a case against a ship, when the owners of the injured ship and the one that did the injury are all foreigners, but, in the case against the Belgenland, the court assumed jurisdiction and decided the case.

§ 111. Courts of situs have jurisdiction of foreign claims to property. The question has frequently arisen, which of two nations may provide the tribunal to pass upon questions affecting the title to land situated within the boundaries of one of them, where the party asserting the claim of title was in the other.

Thus, in Arndt v. Griggs (19) the court was asked to pass upon the validity of a non-resident's claim to land situated in Nebraska, within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. The object of the proceeding was not to get a judgment for money against the non-resi

(19) 134 United States, 316.

dent claimant, and to have it satisfied out of property in the court's territorial jurisdiction, but merely to obtain a determination that the interest he asserted was invalid, and a declaration that it was non-existent. It was contended that the court had no power to do this without the personal presence of the party setting up the claim. This contention was made, although a statute providing for such a proceeding existed in Nebraska. This, it was asserted, was unconstitutional, because the notice provided for was unreasonable, being by publication merely. The court stated the contention thus: "Has the state the power to provide by statute that the title to real estate within its limits shall be settled and determined by a suit in which the defendant, being a non-resident, is brought into court by publication? What jurisdiction

has a state over titles to real estate within its limits, and what jurisdiction may it give by statute to is own courts, to determine the validity and extent of the claims of non-residents to such real estate?" It decided that the state had the power to supply the court to pass upon controversies respecting titles to land within its borders, even though the party against whom its decision might be given was a non-resident, saying: "The court cannot bring the person of a non-resident within its limits-its process goes not out beyond its borders, but it may determine the extent of his title to real estate within its limits; and, for the purpose of such determination, may provide any reasonable methods of imparting notice. The well-being of every community requires that the title of real estate therein shall be secure, and that there

be convenient and certain methods of determining any unsettled questions respecting it."

§ 112. Courts of situs may enforce foreign contracts regarding land. A problem similar to that mentioned above arises where an inhabitant of a foreign nation has agreed to sell land situated in the territorial jurisdiction of a court and then refuses to carry out the contract. The question of Conflict of Laws presented is, which nation shall supply the court to enforce it: the nation where the land is, or the nation of which the contractual vendor is an inhabitant? The courts have held that, under proper statutory authority, the courts of the nation where the land is situated may properly compel a specific performance of the contract, and, if the vendor does not appear, may appoint some one to execute a deed on behalf of the vendor. Similarly, if an inhabitant of a foreign state has agreed to buy a tract of land situated in another, the courts of the latter may take jurisdiction to give the vendor a remedy against the land for any unpaid portion of the purchase price. A closely analogous situation arises where an inhabitant of a foreign nation holds property in trust for another, which the latter desires conveyed to himself. In such a case he is not obliged to go to the nation where the trustee may be found, but, under statutes, may apply to the court of the state or nation where the land is situated and procure a transfer of it to himself. It is recognized as a rule of Conflict of Laws that the nation where the land is situated may supply the court to perfect the transfer.

§ 113. Courts obtaining personal jurisdiction of vendor of land may compel conveyance. The nation, where the

land under contract of purchase and sale is situated, is not the only nation that may supply the contract-enforcing tribunal. It may be supplied by the nation where the contractual vendor is found. Thus in Penn v. Lord Baltimore (20) Penn and Lord Baltimore had entered into an agreement to settle the boundary disputes existing between them as to the boundary between Pennsylvania and Maryland. Each had agreed to convey to the other his interest in certain lands. Lord Baltimore refused to carry out his agreement, and Penn sued him in an English court of equity to compel him to perform the contract. It was contended by Lord Baltimore that the English court had no jurisdiction to compel him to convey lands lying in America. The court held that it had such power, when it had before it the person whose duty it was to make the conveyance. It could compel him to execute a deed to the lands entirely regardless of where they were situated.

§ 114. Courts obtaining personal jurisdiction of trustee may compel conveyance of trust property. A cestui que trust may compel his trustee to convey lands located beyond the jurisdiction of the court. In Massie v. Watts (21) a suit was brought by Watts, a citizen of Virginia, to compel Massie, a citizen of Kentucky, to convey to him the title to a tract of land situated in Ohio. Watts had contracted to buy the land of a third party and Massie knew of the contract. The title had not yet been conveyed, when Massie bought the land of the third party and procured a conveyance of the title to him. It

(20) 1 Vesey Sr., 444.

(21) 6 Cranch (U. S.), 148.

was objected that the court had no power to compel Massie to convey title to land in Ohio. Upon the theory, that, when Massie took title knowing of the rights of Watts, he became a trustee thereof for Watts, the court compelled him to execute a conveyance to Watts.

§ 115. Distinction between proceedings in rem, in personam, and quasi in rem. In the discussion of this Section so far, it may be noted that the nature of the proceeding has in every case been to cut off an interest in property. Thus, in the suit to quiet title to land, a claim was asserted by the moving party that the opponent had no interest and a decree to that effect was sought. The primary object was to cut off the adverse interest that might otherwise be asserted. In the case where a contractual vendee of land procures relief, the sole object of the proceeding is to deprive the vendor of any interest he has in the title to the land involved in the contract. No personal money judgment is sought against the vendor. Where the cestui que trust sues to compel a foreign trustee to convey title to him, the sole object of the proceeding is to cut off the title of his trustee. Other similar cases could be instanced, where the object of the proceeding is simply to procure a declaration of the rights between the parties to a controversy in certain property in the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Where that is the object and the only other accompaniment of the proceeding is to cut off that right or to establish it against the moving party, then the proceeding is a proceeding in rem.

If, however, the proceeding has for its object merely a declaration that the defendant is bound to do or to re