^{page 156 note 1} Ius minor gentium, for private international law, was used by Du Ponceau, distinguished Philadelphia lawyer of French birth, translator of Bynkershoek's Lawof War and Huber's de conflictu legum (3 Dallas 370, U.S. Sup. Ct. 1797), in a review published in 1827 of Kent's Commentaries on American Law. See Nadelmann, , Du Ponceau, Peter S., 24 Pennsylvania Bar Association Quarterly 248Google Scholar; 5 Revue Internationale de Droit Comparé 284 (1953).Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 2} Under a decision of the seventh session, 1951, the Netherlands Governmental Commission will investigate whether new efforts should be made to obtain ratification of the draft convention of 1925/1928. See Conférence de La Haye de Droit International Privé, Actes de la septième session 401 (1952)Google Scholar (resolution e).

^{page 157 note 1} See Jellinek, Die zweiseitigen Staatsverträge über Anerkennung ausländischer Zivilurteile (1953) (table of treaties at 247); 3 Bustamante y Sirvén, Derecho Internacional Privado 285 (3rd ed. 1943)Google Scholar; Alfonsín, La ejecución extranacional de las sentencias en materia civil y comercial, 26 Revista de Derecho Publico y Privado 195, 259 (Uruguay 1951).

^{page 157 note 2} See Read, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in the Common Law Units of the British Commonwealth (1938).

^{page 157 note 3} See Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Committee Report, CMD. No. 4213 (1932).Google Scholar

^{page 157 note 4} Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, 1933, 23 & 24Google Scholar Geo. V. e. 13; 136 British and Foreign State Papers 200; 9 Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 442, 448 (1935)Google Scholar. See Dicey, , Conflict of Laws 420 (6th ed. 1949)Google Scholar; Cheshire, , Private International Law 593 (4th ed. 1952)Google Scholar; Schmitthoff, , English Conflict of Laws 441 (2d ed. 1948)Google Scholar; Read, , op. cit. supra note 2, at 299, 316Google Scholar; Ancel, 28 Revue de Droit International Privé 541 (1933)Google Scholar; idem, Répertoire de Droit International, Supplément 156 (1934).Google Scholar

^{page 157 note 5} Convention of Jan. 18, 1934, for the reciprocal enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, 171 League of Nations Treaty Series 183 (1936)Google Scholar, 137 British and Foreign State Papers 123; 140 Id. 48; 11 Statutory Rules and Orders and Statutory Instruments Revised 186 (1951)Google Scholar; 62 Journal du Droit International 1115 (1935)Google Scholar, 29 Revue Critique de Droit International 800 (1934)Google Scholar. See 6 (2) Niboyet, , Traité de Droit International Privé Français 227Google Scholar; articles by Audinet, 62 Journal du Droit International 805 (1935)Google Scholar; Perroud, 31 Revue Critique de Droit International 333 (1936)Google Scholar; Gutteridge, 32 Revue Critique de Droit International 369 (1937).Google Scholar

^{page 157 note 6} Convention of May 2, 1934 for the reciprocal enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, 173 League of Nations Treaty Series 293 (1936), 137 British and Foreign State Papers 92; 140 Id. 118; 11 Statutory Rules and Orders and Statutory Instruments Revised 166 (1951); [1936] Pasinomie 718. See Poullet, , Manuel de Droit International Privé 581 (3rd ed. 1947)Google Scholar; article by van Hille, 95 Belgique Judiciaire 66 (1937).Google Scholar

^{page 157 note 7} A draft convention was prepared also with Germany (Martin Jonas being the German expert). Text in CMD. No. 4213, supra note 3, at 44. The discussions were not pursued with Hitler Germany.

^{page 158 note 1} Dicey, , op. cit. supra note 4, p 157 at 403Google Scholar; Cheshire, , op. cit. supra note 4, p. 157 at 585Google Scholar; Schmitthoff, , op. cit. supra note 4, p. 157 at 414Google Scholar; Yntema, Enforcement and Recognition of Foreign Judgments in Anglo-American Law, 2 Mémoires de l'Académie Internationale de Droit Comparé, Part III, 348 (1935)Google Scholar; idem, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Anglo-American Law, 33 Michigan Law Review 1129 (1935).Google Scholar

^{page 158 note 2} See CMD. No. 4213, supra note 3, p. 157 at 11.

^{page 158 note 3} Rules of the Supreme Court, Order 14, [1952] Annual Practice 169 (1953).Google Scholar

^{page 158 note 4} See Riezler, , Internationales Zivilprozessrecht 509 et seq. (1949).Google Scholar

^{page 158 note 5} See Jellinek, , op. cit. supra note 1, p. 157 at 216 (with references).Google Scholar

^{page 158 note 6} On jurisdiction based on “personal service”, see Goodrich, , Conflict of Laws 188 (3rd ed. 1949).Google Scholar

^{page 159 note 1} See, e.g., Secretary of State to German d'Affaires, Chargé, 08 31, 1910Google Scholar, 2 Hackworth, Digest of International Law 88 (1941) (non-recognition by German courts of California judgments against German insurance companies after the San Francisco earthquake and fire of 1906). Cf. German Sup. Ct., 03 26, 1909, 70 RG. Z. 434Google Scholar; Nussbaum, , Deutsches Internationales Privatrecht 437 n. 2 (1932)Google Scholar; Süss, Die Anerkennung ausländischer Urteile, in Beiträge zum Zivilprozessrecht—Festgabe für Leo Rosenberg 229, 240 n. 17 (1949).Google Scholar

^{page 159 note 2} Goodrich, , op. cit. supra note 6, p. 158 at 603Google Scholar; Reese, The Status in this Country of Judgments Rendered Abroad, 50 Columbia Law Review 783 (1950). Cf. Perret, La reconnaissance et l'exécution des jugements étrangers aux Etats-Unis (Lausanne thesis 1951). This view was already favored by Story, Conflict of Laws §618 (1834) (reference to Dutch practice as stated by Henry, Jabez, On Personal and Real Statutes, c. 10 §2, p. 76 (1823).Google Scholar

^{page 159 note 3} Cal. Code Civ. Prac. § 1915: A final judgment of any other tribunal of a foreign country having jurisdiction, according to the law of such country, to pronounce the judgment, shall have the same effect as in the country where rendered, and also the same effect as final judgments rendered in this state.

^{page 159 note 4} E.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (1938)Google Scholar; Del. Rev. Code c. 128, §4648 (1935)Google Scholar; Ill. Rev. Stat. c. 110, § 181 (1951)Google Scholar; N.Y. Rules Civ. Prac., Rule, 113 (1921)Google Scholar. See Millar, , Civil Procedure of the Trial Court in Historical Perspective 237 et seq. (1952).Google Scholar

^{page 160 note 1} The federal courts are available in the case of diversity of citizenship, for example. U.S. Const. Art. III, §2 (1).

^{page 160 note 2} Erie R. R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)Google Scholar; Klaxon v. Stenton Electric Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 484 (1941)Google Scholar. See Goodrich, , op. cit. supra note 6, p. 158 at 37Google Scholar; Wolkin, , Conflict of Laws in the Federal Courts, 3 Syracuse L. Rev. 47, 50 (1951)Google Scholar; Tune, L'application du droit des Etats par des juridictions fédérales des Etats-Unis, 3 Revue Internationale de Droit Comparé 5 (1951)Google Scholar, reprinted Revista Jurídica Argentina La Ley (1952).Google Scholar

^{page 160 note 3} 159 U.S. 113 (1895).

^{page 160 note 4} This is still the principle of French law. See Batiffol, , Traité Elémentaire de Droit International Privé 784 (1949)Google Scholar; 6 (2) Niboyet, , op. cit. supra note 5, p. 157 at 117Google Scholar; Delaume, , American—French Private International Law 60 (1953).Google Scholar

^{page 160 note 5} E.g., Johnston v. Compagnie Générale Transatlantique, 242 N.Y. 381, 152 N.B. 121 (1926), 54 Journal du Droit International 196 (1927). Note, 46 American Law Reports 439 (1927). Cf. Castel, Le principe de la réciprocité et l'exécution des jugements français aux Etats-Unis, 42 Revue Critique de Droit International Privé 317 (1953).Google Scholar

^{page 160 note 6} E.g., 2 Beale, Conflict of Laws § 434.3 (1935)Google Scholar; Goodrich, , op. cit. supra note 6, p. 158 at 605.Google Scholar

^{page 160 note 7} “A foreign money judgment will be enforced although the judgments of the forum are not enforced in the foreign state.” Restatement, Conflict cf Laws §434, comment b (1934).

^{page 160 note 8} Supra note 2.

^{page 161 note 1} This was suggested by the late Professor Niboyet before the Commission for the Reform of the French Civil Code, [1949–1950] Travaux de la Commission de Réforme du Code Civil 769 (1951). Cf. Nadelmann, Reprisals against American Judgments? 65 Harv. L. Rev. 1184 (1952)Google Scholar; Nadelmann and von Mehren, French Draft Law on Private International Law, 1 Amer. Journal of Comparative Law 416, 431 n. 52 (1952).Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 2} U.S. Foreign Relations: 1874, at 795 (06 4, 1874)Google Scholar. Cf. Kosters, , Het Internationaal Burgerlijk Recht in Nederland 84 n. 2 (1917).Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 3} U.S. Const. Amend. X.

^{page 161 note 4} U.S. Foreign Relations: 1874, at 793.Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 5} U.S. Const. Art. II, §2 (2).

^{page 162 note 1} Supra note 5, p. 161.

^{page 162 note 2} An instance is the Migratory Bird Treaty with Canada of August 16, 1916, declared constitutional in Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920). Cf. Mitchell, , State Interests in American Treaties 124 (1936).Google Scholar

^{page 162 note 3} See Nadelmann, Ignored State Interests: The Federal Government and International Efforts to Unify Rules of Private Law, 102 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 323 (1954).Google Scholar

^{page 162 note 4} E.g., International Conference for the Unification of the Law of Bills of Exchange, etc., Preparatory Documents 100 (League of Nations Publications II: Econ. & Financial 1929. II 28).

^{page 162 note 5} The International Conferences of American States 1889–1928 (1931) 371Google Scholar; 4 Hudson, International Legislation 2347 (1931).

^{page 163 note 1} 23 Proceedings, American Society of International Law 195 (1929).Google Scholar

^{page 163 note 2} For the power of Congress to regulate, e.g., commerce with foreign nations, bankruptcy, copyright and patents, see U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8.

^{page 163 note 3} 2 International American Conference, Reports of Committees and Reports thereon 921, 924 (1890) (Manuel Quintana).

^{page 163 note 4} Id. at 928 (John B. Henderson).

^{page 164 note 1} U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8 (3).

^{page 164 note 2} 7 Albany Law Journal 146, 147 (1873).Google Scholar

^{page 164 note 3} Gf. Field, Draft—Outlines of an International Code, preface i (1872)Google Scholar; idem, On a Project for an International Code, Manchester, 1866Google Scholar, Transactions, National Association for the Promotion of Social Science 42, 50.

^{page 164 note 4} Origin, nature and scope of the National Conference are given in the Appendix of the yearly published Handbook of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.

^{page 164 note 5} These laws may be found in the standard work, “Uniform Laws Annotated”, published by the Edward Thompson Company, Brooklyn, N.Y., supplements being issued every year.

^{page 164 note 6} Among these laws are: the Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, the Power of Foreign Representatives Act, the Ancillary Administration of Estates Act, the Probate of Foreign Wills Act, the Divorce Recognition Act. Text in volumes 9 and 9 A (Miscellaneous Acts) of the “Uniform Laws Annotated”, supra.

^{page 165 note 1} Text, with the Commissioners' notes, in [1948] Handbook of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws 156, and 9 Uniform Laws Annotated 376 (1951).Google Scholar

^{page 165 note 2} For judgments of federal courts, provision is made, since 1948, for a nationwide registration system. Section 1963 of the Judicial Code (28 U.S.C.A., 1950) provides for registration in any other district; and, when so registered, the judgment is to have the same effect as a judgment of the district court of the district where registered.

^{page 165 note 3} Ark. 1949, Act 34Google Scholar; Ill. 1951, p. 1952; Miss. 1951Google Scholar; Nebr. 1949, c. 50Google Scholar; Wis. 1949, c. 2571Google Scholar; Wyo. 1949 c. 71.Google Scholar

^{page 165 note 4} U.S. Const. Art. IV, § 1.

^{page 165 note 5} [1946] Handbook of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws 241Google Scholar (summary judgment procedure) and 254 (registration procedure).

^{page 165 note 6} See Leflar, The New Uniform Foreign Judgments Act, 24 New York Univ. Law Quarterly Review 336, 349 (1949).Google Scholar

^{page 165 note 7} Page 170 infra.

^{page 166 note 1} [1924] Proceedings, Conference of Commissioners on Uniformity of Legislation in Canada 14, 60Google Scholar. Amended: [1925] Id. 13.

^{page 166 note 2} [1933] Id. 86, 18 Canadian Bar Association Proceedings 310 (1933)Google Scholar. Read, , op. cit. supra note 2, p. 157 at 313.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 3} [1937] Id. 32/33, 22 Canadian Bar Association Proceedings 284.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 4} [1939] Id. 42, 24 Canadian Bar Association Proceedings 274.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 5} Ibid.

^{page 166 note 6} See [1951] Id. 20, 46; [1953] Id. The new Act is to apply indistinctively to foreign and provincial court decisions.

^{page 167 note 1} See Committee Report, American Judgments Abroad, 8Google ScholarThe Record of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York 302 (1953).Google Scholar

^{page 167 note 2} U.S. Const. Art. I, § 10 (3).

^{page 167 note 3} Cf. 1932 Report of the Committee on Compacts, 42 Handbook of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws 280, 293 (1932).Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 1} “The laws of the several states, except where the Constitution or treaties of the United States or Acts of Congress otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in civil actions in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1652 (1950).

^{page 168 note 2} Fed. R. Civ. P. 69 (a), 28 U.S.C.A., Rules, §69 (1950).

^{page 168 note 3} The Supreme Court has power to amend the Federal Rules. See 28 U.S.C.A. §2072, as amended (Supp. 1952). Cf. Moore, , Judicial Code 0.03 (55) (1949)Google Scholar. An advisory Committee appointed by the Court was in charge of drafting.

^{page 168 note 4} See Stewart, , Treaty Relations of the British Commonwealth of Nations 247 (1939).Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 5} Art. 13 of both conventions, supra notes 5 and 6, p. 157.

^{page 168 note 6} 141 British and Foreign State Papers 295 (France); 142 Id. 136 (Belgium). Moniteur Belge, Febr. 25, 1938; French Journal Officiel 1937. N.Z. Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Rules 1938, [1938] N.Z. Statutory Regulations No. 176 (France) p. 734, and No. 177 (Belgium), p. 744.

^{page 168 note 7} Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act, 1934Google Scholar, [1934] N.Z. Statutes 49. Cf. Read, , op. cit. supra note 2, p. 157 at 309.Google Scholar

^{page 169 note 1} See, notably, A. & Tunc, S., Le Système Constitutionnel des Etats-Unis d'Amérique (1954).Google Scholar

^{page 169 note 2} See, on the contrary, Asser, Droit international privé et droit uniforme, 12 Revue de Droit International et de Législation Comparée 5, 17 (1880).Google Scholar

^{page 169 note 3} des Motifs, Exposé, Parliamentary Documents, No. 16, 1935–36 Session, Nov. 26, 1935Google Scholar. Poullet, , op. cit. supra note 6, p. 157 at 581.Google Scholar

^{page 169 note 4} Contrast the treatment given the 5th and 6th sessions of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (unreported) with that given the 7th session in 1 American Journal of Comparative Law 275 et seq. (1952). For United States cooperation in the Western Hemisphere, see Nadelmann, , loc. cit. supra note 3, p. 162.Google Scholar