opinion adhering to the established rule. In Little v. Railway (17) an action was brought in Minnesota by Little to recover damages that the railway had done to his land situated in Wisconsin. The court gave a judgment for Little, but, in doing so it, recognized fully that it was departing from long-established precedent. It said: "Almost every court or judge who has ever discussed the question has criticised or condemned the rule as technical, wrong on principle, and often resulting in a total denial of justice, and yet has considered himself bound to adhere to it under the doctrine of stare decisis. We recognize the respect due to judicial precedents, and the authority of the doctrine of stare decisis; but, inasmuch as this rule is in no sense a rule of property, and as it is purely technical, wrong in principle, and in practice often results in a total denial of justice, and has been so generally criticised by eminent jurists, we do not feel bound to adhere to it, notwithstanding the great array of judicial decisions in its favor."

If the general rule be adhered to, then this class of proceedings to get personal judgments is an exception to the rule that the nation where the defendant can be found may supply the court to determine a controversy over a mere money claim. This exception is itself generally qualified by another exception, to the effect that where the defendant does an act in one state that injures land in another state, he may be sued for trespass in either state obtaining jurisdiction of him (18).

(17) 65 Minnesota, 48.

SECTION 2. PROCEEDINGS IN REM OR QUASI IN REM.

§ 109. In general. Courts of situs. While the nation in which a person is physically present may supply the court to determine personal controversies to which he is a party, as shown above, merely because he is present and is served with process, that is not the only basis for permitting a nation to supply the tribunal for such suits. It may supply it because the defendant has property there and cannot be found there himself. Whether he is domiciled there or not, two forms of proceedings may then be taken. These are known as proceedings in rem and quasi in rem, depending upon whether the main purpose is to cut off the foreigner's property right altogether, or to get a judgment and incidentally apply the property to satisfy it. This distinction will be more fully shown by illustrative cases, which it is the purpose of this Section to discuss, as well as to show what nation may provide the tribunal in which to institute such proceedings. The courts of the nation where the property to be affected is physically present are called "courts of the situs" (See § 66, above).

§ 110. Courts of situs have jurisdiction over ships anchored there. The commonest and most ancient form of a proceeding strictly in rem is that of a suit against a vessel by those having a claim against it. In the case of The Belgenland (18a) the Belgian vessel of that name ran down a Norwegian vessel called Luna and injured her. The master of the Luna, on behalf of her owners, brought suit against the Belgenland to recover the damages sus

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

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