Barrett - The Doctrine of

8/7/2019 Barrett - The Doctrine of

1/44

California Law Review, Inc.

The Doctrine of "Forum Non Conveniens"Author(s): Edward L. Barrett, Jr.Source: California Law Review, Vol. 35, No. 3 (Sep., 1947), pp. 380-422Published by: California Law Review, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3477253 .

Accessed: 17/01/2011 16:25

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=clr. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

California Law Review, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to California

Law Review.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=clrhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3477253?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=clrhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=clrhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3477253?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=clr


2/44

380 [Vol.3a

The Doctrine of ForumNon ConveniensEdward L. Barrett, Jr.*

THE interestsof plaintiffand defendant n the placeof trial for acivil actionfrequently onflict.The defendant, or obviousandlegitimate easons,willusuallyprefer o be sued wherehe residesorwhere he factsgivingriseto theplaintiff's auseof actionoccurred.But a rulesolimitinghe venueof actionswouldpermit he defendantto avoidhisobligationsnmanycasesby thesimpleexpedient f per-manently emoving imselfandhispropertyromthejurisdictionfthe courtsof the states where hevenue s laid. Thepatent njusticeof sucha resulthasled common-lawourts o devisevenuerulesde-signed primarily o assist the plaintiff n his pursuitof an elusivedefendant.1Under hesevenuerulesactionsrelatingo realproperty re ocalandmustbebroughtwhere he landlies.2Butsubstantially ll otheractionsaretransitory ndmaybe sueduponwherever hedefendantcan be foundand subjected o the jurisdiction f the court.3Fre-quently,therefore, he plaintiffhas a choice of several forums nwhichto sue sincetodaya defendantoftenmaybe subjectedo the

*B.S.Utah StateAgriculturalCollege,1938;LL.B.Universityof California,1941;Lecturern Jurisprudencend Secretaryof the Facultyof Jurisprudence, niversityofCalifornia.

1 SCOTT, UNDAMENTALSFPROCEDuREN ACTIONSATLAW (1922) c. 1; Foster,Place of Trialin CivilActions(1930) 43 HARV. . REV.1217,44 ibid.41; Kuhn,Localand TransitoryActions n PrivateInternationalLaw (1918) 66 U. or PA.L. REV. 01;Storke,Venueof Actionsof Trespass o Land (1921) 27 W. VA. L. Q. 301; Wheaton,Natureof Actions--Localand Transitory 1922) 16 ILL.L. REV. 56.The traditionalattitude of the courtswas best expressedn Barrell v. Benjamin(1819) 15 Mass.354, 357, where a Connecticut esident erveda Demerararesident nBoston when he was there to boardship en route to Demeraraand was permitted orecovera personal udgmenton a causeof action whicharose in Demerara:"It is truethat the debtormay be put to inconvenience y being obligedto answer in a foreigncountry.But the creditormay also be put to inconveniencef he shouldbe deniedtheprivilegeof suing n a foreigncourt; for the debtormay withdrawhis personand effectsfrom the placeof his business;and if he cannot be pursued,may defraudhis creditorofhis due."See also Robertsv. Dunsmuir 1888) 75 Cal.203,16 Pac. 782.2 n these actions he plaintiffcanusually satisfyhis demands venthoughthe courtdoes not have personal urisdictionof the defendant,with the exception,of course,ofactions for trespass o land whenthey are consideredocal. See authorities ited in note1, supra.8 Stonev. United States(1897) 167U. S. 178.


3/44

1947] FORUM NON CONVENIENS 381jurisdictionof manycourts. Individualsmay travel widelyin thenormal ourseof business ndtherefore esubject opersonalervicein manystates. Andcorporations, hichoncewerethought o dwellonlyin the statesof their ncorporation,' aynowbe sued on transi-torycausesofactionnanystate n which heydo a substantialmountof business5 r in whichtheyhaveexpressly onsentedo such suitsas a condition f doingbusiness."Theplaintiff's ightto choose urisdictionsn which o sue,how-ever,has oftenimposed nunnecessaryndharshburdenon thede-fendantwhois makingno effort o avoidhis obligations.Numerousdifficulties reinvolved n defending suitat a placeotherthantheresidenceof the defendantor the localitywhere he causeof actionarose.'Personal ttendancef witnessesmaynotbecompelled crossstatelines.'Theexpenseof transportingoluntarywitnessesorbusi-nessrecordsmaybeout ofproportiono the amountnsuit.Necessarywitnessesmaybethedefendant'seyemployeeswhoseabsencewould

4Bank of Augustav. Earle(1839) 38 U. S. (13 Pet.) 519; HENDERSON,HEPOSI-TIoN OF FOREIGNCORPORATIONSN AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALAW (1918) c. V;McGovney,A SupremeCourtFiction: Corporationsn the Diverse Citizenship uris-dictionof theFederalCourts(1943) 56 HARV. .REV. 53, 1090,1225.5Underrecentcasescorporationsmaybe sued n any state n whichtheydo businesson causes of action arisingout of that business.InternationalShoe Co. v. State ofWashington(1945) 326 U. S. 310; McBaine,JurisdictionOverForeign Corporations:ActionsArisingOutof ActsDone Withinthe Forum(1946) 34 CALIF.. REv.331.And,while the casesare not entirely clear,there appears o be little doubt that serviceofprocessuponan actualagentof a foreigncorporationwhich s doingsubstantialbusinessin the state is sufficient o give jurisdictionof an action arisingoutside the state. SeeRailroadCo.v. Harris(1870) 79U. S. (12 Wall.) 65; New York,LakeErie& W.R. Co.v. Estill (1893) 147U. S. 591; Missouri,K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Reynolds(1921) 255 U. S.565, aff'gReynoldsv. Missouri,K. & T. Ry. Co. (1917) 228Mass.584, 117N. E. 913;International hoeCo.v. State of Washington, upra,at 318; McBAINE,ASESNTRIALPRACTICE2ded. 1941) 134,n.; Note (1936)45 YALEL.J. 1100,1114.But cf. OldWayneLife Ass'nv. McDonough(1907) 204 U. S. 8; Simon v. SouthernRy. Co. (1915) 236U. S. 115; Davis v. FarmersCo-operativeCo. (1923) 262U. S. 312.

6PennsylvaniaFireIns. Co. v. GoldIssueMiningCo. (1917) 243 U. S. 93; Smolikv. Philadelphia&ReadingCoal & Iron Co. (S. D. N. Y. 1915) 222 Fed. 148; McBAINE,loc. cit. supranote 5; Note (1936) 45 YALEL.J. 1100, 1112. The filing of an actualconsentto be suedpursuant o state statuteis now construedas a consent o be suedinthe federalas well as the state courtsandthus constitutesa waiver of the federalvenuerequirements.Neirbo Co. v. BethlehemCorp. (1939) 308 U.S. 165. Apparently hisextendsto permitting uit in the federalcourtuponcausesof actionarisingoutsidethestate. SeeGulf OilCorp.v. Gilbert(1947) 330U. S. 501.7See Gulf OilCorp.v. Gilbert,bid.at 508, quoted nfra.8 See 8 WIGMORE,VIDENCE3d ed. 1940) ?2195a.The alternativeof trial upondeposition s obviouslyof limitedusefulness,particularlyn personal njuryactions.


4/44

382 CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW [Vol.35interfere with the business as would the absenceof essentialrecords.9In other cases a view of the place where the action arose may be es-sential to a proper understandingof a defense. These and similarfactors frequentlyhavemade it profitablefor a plaintiffwith a doubt-ful orspeculativecauseof actionto select the forum most inconvenientto the defendantso as to coercea largersettlementthan the merits ofhis case would warrant.'oThe railroads,in particular,have long complainedof the burdenof defendingsuits for personalinjuries broughtby employeesunderthe FederalEmployers'LiabilityAct" in states far removedfromtheplace of injury.During World War I the burdenon the railroadsbe-came so great that the Director General of Railroads issued ordersrequiringsuit to be broughtin the county or district where the causeof action arose or where the plaintiffresidedat the time it accrued.'2With the return of the railroads to private hands the practice ofsuing in distant jurisdictions was revived"'and today is so wide-

9 For a detailedpictureof the difficultiesacinga defendant eeHeinev. New YorkLife Ins. Co. (C. C.A.9th, 1931) 50 F. (2d) 382 (burdenof transporting ecords ncontractaction); Union Pac. R. Co. v. Utterback(1944) 173 Ore.572, 146 P. (2d) 76(burdenof transportingwitnesses n tort action).o10eeauthorities itedin note 9, supra,and notes 13, 14, 16,infra.1135 STAT. (1908) 65, 45 U. S. C. (1940) ? 51. The statute provides that suit may bebrought n the federalor the state court n the districtof the residence f the defendant,or in which the causeof actionarose,or in which the defendant hallbe doingbusinessatthe time of commencinghe action.36 STAT.1910) 291,45 U. S.C. (1940) ? 56. For adiscussion f thehistoryandpurposesof this venuesectionseeBaltimore& OhioR. Co.

v. Kepner(1941) 314 U. S. 44; Milesv. Illinois CentralR. Co. (1942) 315 U.S. 698;Note (1930) 39 YALE . J. 388.12GeneralOrdersNo. 18and18A,upheld n Alabama tc.Ry. Co.v. Journey(1921)257 U. S. 111.1 The worst offenseswere in Minnesotawhere t had previouslybeen heldthat thecourtshad no discretiono refuse o hearsuch suits.Stateex rel.Prallv. District Court(1914) 126 Minn. 501, 148 N. W. 463; Davis v. Minneapolis,St. P. &S. S. M. Ry. Co.(1916) 134Minn.455, 159N. W. 1084.In 1923,1,028personalnjurycaseswerependingin theMinnesota ourts n which nonresident laintiffswereseekingdamagesaggregatingsome$26,000,000romforeignrailroadcorporationswhich did not even operate inesinthe state.See Davis v. FarmersCo-operativeCo.,supranote 5, at 316,n. In Windersv.Illinois Central R. Co. (1929) 177 Minn. 1, 5, 223 N.W. 291, 292, 226 N. W. 213, thecourtheld: "The trial courtrightlyrefused o dismiss he actioneven thoughconvincedthat plaintiffhad retainedhis attorneysunder a champertous greement,or that theyare, by illegalmethods,obtainingcasesfor prosecutionn this state which in fairnessoughtto be tried elsewhere."Cf. Chicago,M., St. P. &P. R. Co. v. Wolf (1929) 199Wis.278, 226 N. W. 297, criticizing he Winderscase.For otherMinnesotacasespermittingsuchsuitsagainstrailroads, ee Ervingv. Chicago&NorthWesternRy. Co. (1927) 171Minn.87, 214 N. W. 12; Borightv. Chicago,R. I. &P. R. Co. (1930) 180Minn.52, 230N. W. 457; Hoch v. Byramn1930) 180 Minn. 298, 230 N. W. 823; see also Doyle v.Northern Pac. Ry. Co. (D. Minn. 1932) 55 F. (2d) 708, (1933) 46 HARv.L. REv. 521.


5/44

19471 FORUMNON CONVENIENS 383spread",that the railroadsare petitioningCongressfor relief.'5Fur-thermorethe organizedbar has become arousedby the opportunityaffordedunethical lawyers to solicit such causes of action arising inoutlying areas for suit in large cities by promisesof more liberalset-tlements or larger verdicts.'"It has become apparent that undermodern conditions "the open door may admit those who seek not

14A surveyconductedby 51leadingrailroads howed hat duringa fiveyearperiodending n 1946some2,512suits werefiled outside he federaldistrict n whichtheaccidentoccurredor in which the plaintiffresidedat the time of the accidentand that 92% ofthese suits were concentratedn the states of Illinois,New York, Minnesota,Missouriand California.H. R. REP.No. 613,80th Cong.1stSess. (1947), at 3; statementof JohnW. Freels,representinghe Law.Committee f the Associationof AmericanRailroads,HEARINGS BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEENo. 4, COMMITTEEON THE JUDICIARY, HOUSEOFREPRESENTATIVES, ON H.R. 1639, 80th Cong. 1st Sess. (1947) Serial4, at 31.See generallyHenderson,The "Exportation" f Personal njuryand Death Claims(1945) 13 DETROIT ARQ. 11; Winters,InterstateCommercen DamageSuits (1946)29 J. Am. JuD. Soc. 135; Note (1930) 39 YALE L.J. 388.15H. R. 1639,80th Cong.1st Sess. (1947) a bill designed o limit the venue of per-sonalinjuryactionsagainstrailroads,was passedby the Houseof Representativesuly17, 1947,but has not beenactedupon by the Senate.See note 29, infra.The railroadshave taken a very strong position in support of this measure. See HEARINGSEFOREUB-COMMITEE No.4, op.cit.supranote 14,at 24; H. R. REP.No. 613, oc. cit.supranote 14.16Majorsupport or H. R. 1639,supranote 15, came from the legalprofession. tsauthor,Hon. John Jennings,Jr., United StatesRepresentativeromTennessee,estifiedthat the purposeof the act was to do two things:"It is to avoid the inconvenience ocarrierswhich runthroughmanyStates,andit is to stop this racketeering racticewhichhasgrownupto theprejudice f theprofession, ndtheinjustice hatis doneto legitimatelawyers, lawyers who observe the canons,the ethics, the decenciesand high require-mentsof the profession,who have beendeprivedof this litigation."HEARINGSEFORESUBCOMMITTEE No. 4, op.cit. supranote 14,at 5. TheAmericanBarAssociation nd thebar associationsof 35 statespassedresolutionsapprovingH. R. 1639.H. R. REP.No.613, op. cit. supranote 14, at 2. See also Hendersonand Winters,both loc. cit. supranote 14.The most extremeexampleof unethicalpracticeis presented n injunctionsuitsagainsta Chicago awyernow pending n the SuperiorCourtof Cook County,Illinois.The Atchison,Topeka&S. F. Ry. Co. v. Andrews,No. 46 S4586; SouthernPacificCo.v. Andrews,No. 46 S 9155.Theproofin these cases s said to haveshown that the lawyerorganized n elaborateprocurementtaffof some 25 or 30 chaserswithheadquartersn aLosAngelesmansion o inducerailroad mployeesnjuredn Arizona,California,ndNewMexicoto bring heircases o him forsuit in Chicago ourts;that in a year's imehe filed100suits n Chicago nforeigncausesof actionagainst hetwo railroadsor a totalallegedliability of over $6,000,000.See testimonyof Floyd E. Thompson,attorney for theplaintiffs in these cases, in HEARINGSBEFOREUBCOMMITTEENo. 4, op. cit. supra note14,at 18, 19.The complaintn the SantaFe casecontainsa tabulationshowingthat intheperiod romSeptember, 945, hroughMarch,1946, heattorney iled40 suitsagainstthe Santa Fe based on injurieswhichoccurredn Arizona,California, nd New Mexicofor a total allegedliability of $2,060,000.The averagemileagevia Santa Fe from thesceneof the accident o Chicagowas computed o be 1,930miles.For othercasesgivingdetailsof champertousolicitationof litigationagainstrailroads, ee Windersv. IllinoisCentralR. Co.; Chicago,M., St. P. &P. R. Co.v. Wolf,both supranote 13.


6/44

384 CALIFORNIALAW REVIEW [Vol.35simply usticebutperhaps usticeblendedwithsomeharassment".l7Courts and legislatureshave attempteda numberof divergentsolutionsto the problem hus presentedof limitingthe plaintiff'schoiceof forumswithoutpermittinghe defendanto escapeormini-mizehisobligations.Where heinjured arty s a resident f thestateinwhich he causeof actionarosehisprosecutionf theactionoutsidethatstatemaybeenjoinedf it wouldbevexatious rharassing.'8hissolutionhas obviousimitations."9t is anexpensive ndwastefulpro-ceedingwhichrequiresheparties o tryonelawsuitat hometo de-terminewhether nother uit abroad hallproceed.Moreover,n themostvexatious ases,whereanimpecuniouslaintiff as left the stateat theinstigation f a lawyerwho s financinghesuit,the courtmaynot be ableto maketheinjunction ffective.?And theUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasheld hatsuch njunctionsmaynotbeissuedwheresuitis broughtunder he FederalEmployers' iabilityAct.'Anotherapproacho theproblemhas beento applya restrictionderived rom hecommercelauseof the UnitedStatesConstitution.The burdenplacedupon heefficiency f railroadswhen heiroperat-ing employeeshad to be transportedo distantjurisdictions s wit-nessesinduced he UnitedStatesSupremeCourtto applythe com-merceclause in Davis v. FarmersCo-operativeCo." The Courtheldthata statestatutepermittinguitby a nonresidentgainsta foreigncarriernastate nwhich hecauseof actiondidnot ariseand nwhichthe carrierdid no businessotherthan the solicitationof trafficun-reasonably bstructed ndundulyburdenednterstatecommerce.?Thedevelopmentf this doctrine asbeen racedn detailelsewhere.:

17Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, supra note 6, at 507.18The cases are reviewed in Note (19,41) 27 IOWAL. REv. 76, 99. See also Messner,TheJurisdiction fa Courtof EquityOverPersonsTo Compel heDoingof ActsOutsidethe Territorial Limits of the State (1930) 14 MINN. L. REv. 494, 495-506.19See the critical discussion in Foster, op. cit. supra note 1, at 1240.20 Since the injunction operates only on the person of the defendant, it may be

disregarded by the foreign court. Foster, op. cit. supra note 1, at 1240; Note (1941) 27IOWAL. REV.76, 78-81.21Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Kepner; Miles v. Illinois Central R. Co., both supranote 11; see Note (1941) 51 YAL~L. J. 343; (1942) 27 CORN.L. Q. 273; (1942) 20 N. C.L. REV.210; (1942) 15 So. CALun. . REV.482; cf. (1940) 46 W. VA. L. Q. 344.22Supra note 5.23See also Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Wells (1924) 265 U. S. 101; Missouri v.Taylor (1924) 266 U. S. 200; Hoffman v. Missouri (1927) 274 U. S. 21; Michigan Centralv. Mix (1929) 278 U. S. 492; Denver & R. G. W. R. Co. v. Terte (1932) 284 U. S. 284;International Milling Co. v. Columbia Co. (1934) 292 U. S. 511; Note (1936) 104A. L. R. 1075.

24Dainow, The Inappropriate Forum (1935) 29 ILL. L. REv. 867; Farrier, SuitsAgainstForeignCorporations s a Burdenon InterstateCommerce 1933) 17 MINN.


7/44

1947] FORUM NON CONVENIENS 385Forpresentpurposest is enough o note that it affordsno generalsolution to the problem.To date only interstate railroadshave beenpermitted to use the commerce clause as a defense' and then onlywhen suit has been brought by a nonresident2on a foreigncause ofaction in a state where the carrierdid not own or operate railroadlines.2'A third approachhas been to restrict the venue of transitoryactions by statute. Occasionallystate statutes have limited the juris-dictionof local courts so that they could not hearsuits againstforeigncorporationson causesof actionarisingoutsidethe state.2sCongress sconsideringa bill to limit the venue of all actions for wrongfuldeathor personalinjuriesbroughtagainstinterstate railroadsto the districtcourt or state court of the district or county, respectively, in whichthe cause of action arose, or in which the injured party resided at thetime of the accident." But the rigidity of such statutes may causeL. REv. 381; Foster, op. cit. supra note 1, at 1232; Note (1936) 34 MICH.L. REV.979;(1946) 46 COL.L. REV. 643.

25 Cases cited in note 23, supra. The International Milling Co. case suggests thatthe doctrine might be applied to other interstate transportation companies.SInternational Milling Co. v. Columbia Co., supra note 23. But cf. Klepper v.Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. (1946) 271 App. Div. 52, 62 N. Y. S. (2d) 627.2 Hoffman v. Missouri; Denver & R. G. W. R. Co. v. Terte, both supra note 23;see Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Kepner, supra note 11, at 54; Miles v. Illinois Central R.Co., supra note 11, at 701.28An Ohio statute has been held to prevent bringing suit against transportationcompanies for personal injuries received outside the state. OHIOANN. CODE Throck-

morton, 1940) ? 11273; Loftus v. Pennsylvania Rd. Co. (1923) 107 Ohio St. 352, 140N. E. 94.Prior to 1913 the New York statutes made no provision for suits by a nonresidentagainst a foreign corporation upon a cause of action arising outside the state. N. Y. CODECiv. PRoc. (1890) ? 1780; Robinson v. Oceanic Steam Nav. Co. (1889) 112 N. Y. 315,19 N. E. 625; Gregonis v. Philadelphia & R. C. &I. Co. (1923) 235 N. Y. 152, 139 N. E.223, (1924) 32 A. L. R. 1. See also Gober v. Fed. Life Ins. Co. (1931) 255 Mich. 20, 237N. W. 32; Central R. R. Co. v. Georgia Co. (1890) 32 S. C. 319, 11 S. E. 192.29H. R. 1639, supra note 15, as passed by the House on July 17,1947,provides for theamendment of ? 51 of the Judicial Code (36 STAT.[19'1111101,28 U.S.C. [1940] ? 112) byadding the following paragraph: "A civil suit for damagesfor wrongful death or personalinjuries against any interstate common carrierby railroadmay be brought only in adistrictcourt of the United States or in a State court of competent jurisdiction, in the districtor county (parish), respectively, in which the cause of action arose, or where the personsuffering death or injury resided at the time it arose: Provided, That if the defendantcannot be served with process issuing out of any of the courts afore-mentioned, then andonly then, the action may be brought in a district court of the United States, or in aState court of competent jurisdiction, at any place where the defendant shall be doingbusiness at the time of the institution of said action." The venue section of the Federal

Employers' Liability Act (see supra note 11) would be repealed with the exception ofthe portion preventing removals from the state to federal courts.


8/44

386 CALIFORNIALAWREVIEW [Vol.35serious injustice to the plaintiff in the cases where he has entirelylegitimate reasons for suing in a state other than that in which thecause of action aroseor eitherparty resides.30Consider,for example,the case of a New Jersey resident who is injuredwhile temporarily nCaliforniathroughnegligenceattributableto a Californiacorporationwhich also doesbusinessin New York but not in New Jersey.It mightbe quiteunreasonablenot to allowhimto sue in New Yorkbut to forcehimto travel to Californiato sue."l And thereare cases where the con-venienceof both partieswouldbest be servedby trial in a state otherthan that of the accident or the residenceof the plaintiff.For example,if a railroademployee is injuredin one state and hospitalizedin an-other, the witnesses who often are most important-those who willtestify on the issue of damages-may residein the latter state.3"Another,and it is believed more promising, attempt to solve theproblem s beingmade in somejurisdictionsby applicationof the doc-trine of forumnon conveniens"3which will be discussedherein.Eventhough jurisdictionover the defendanthas been obtained,by applica-tion of this doctrine trial courts are given a discretionarypower torefuse to heartransitorycauses of action whenever trial in the forumwould be inappropriate.It will be the purposeof this article (1) todeterminethe extent to which the doctrineof forum non convenienshas been recognizedand to discuss constitutional and other limita-tions on its application n the state and federalcourts; and (2) to sur-vey and appraisethe operationof the doctrine in the jurisdictionsinwhich it has been accepted.I. DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF ForumNon Conveniens-

CONSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER LIMITATIONS.The originsof the doctrineof forumnon conveniensare obscure."The term itself appearsto have been used first in a series of Scottish30 ee Foster, op. cit. supra note 1, at 1223; Note (1930) 39 YALE L. J. 388, 400.31 Cf. Barrow Steamship Co. v. Kane (1898) 170 U. S. 100; cases cited in note 149,infra.32 See statement of Warren H. Atherton on behalf of the Brotherhood of Railroad

Trainmen, HmARINGSEFOREUBCOM~MITiEENo. 4, op. cit. supra note 14, at 57; H. R.REI. No. 613, Part 2, 80th Cong. 1st Sess. (1947), at 2.Under H. R. 1639, supra note 15, as passed by the House, the injured employee wouldbe required to sue in the county, if in a state court, or else in the federal district, if in afederal court, in which the injury occurred or in which he resided, even though all thewitnesses happened to live in another county or district.

33 For general discussions of the doctrine see Blair, The Doctrine of Forum NonConveniens in Anglo-American Law (1929) 29 Cot. L. REv. 1; Dainow, loc. cit. supranote 24; Foster, loc. cit. supra note 1.- The doctrine does not appear to be directly traceable to Roman or continental


9/44

1947] FORUMNON CONVENIENS 387decisionsnthelate 1800's o describewhatwasby thena settledruleof Scottishpractice,.e., trial courtscouldrefuseto hearcases whenthe endsof justicewouldbest be servedbytrial n anotherforum.85nan independent evelopment few Americanourts,withoutbenefitof theLatinphrase,early recognizedhe discretion f trialcourts orefuse urisdictionn certain ypesof cases."And n recentyearsthepractice.SeeBeale,The Jurisdiction f CourtsOverForeigners 1913) 26 HARV.. REV.193,283; Dainow, op. cit. supranote 24, at 881,n.; Lorenzen,TheFrenchRules of theConflictof Laws (1927) 36 YALE . J. 731, 744; Pillet,Jurisdictionn ActionsBetweenForeigners 1905) 18HARV.. REV. 25. But cf. (1943) 56 HARV.. REV. 162.

35In a few very earlyScottish cases the pleaof forumnon competens,whichnor-mallywas directed o a lackof jurisdiction,wassustainedn caseswherethe jurisdictionseemed clear but the partieswere nonresidents nd trial in Scotlandwould have beeninconvenient.E.g., Vernorv. Elvies (1610) 6 Dict. of Dec. 4788; Col. Brog'sHeir v................ (1639) 6 Dict. of Dec. 4816; cf. Anderson . Hodgson(1747) 6 Dict. of Dec.4779.In latercases he courtsexpressly ecognizedhat the pleaof forumnon competenswas availableboth where the court lackedjurisdictionand where it was not expedientfor the due administration f justiceto hear the case. See Parkenv. Royal ExchangeAssuranceCo. (1846) 8 Sess. Cas. (2d ser.) 365; Longworthv. Hope (1865) 3 Sess.Cas. (3d ser.) 1049,1053 ("Thenext question s the questionof forumnon competens.Now the plea usuallythus expresseddoes not meanthat the forum is one in which itis wholly incompetent o dealwith the question.Thepleahas receiveda wide significa-tion, and is frequentlystatedin reference o casesin which the Courtmay consider tmoreproper or the ends of justicethat the partiesshouldseektheirremedy n anotherforum."); Clementsv. Macaulay(1866) 4 Sess.Cas. (3d ser.) 583; 7 ENcYC.LAWSOFSCOTLAND1929) 180.Thereafter he courts apparently nvented the term forumnon conveniens o beused instead of forumnon competenswhen the jurisdictionof the court was clearandonly a questionof discretionwas involved. See Brown v. Cartwright 1883) 20 Scot.L. R. 818; Williamsonv. North-EasternRy. Co. (1884) 21 Scot. L. R. 421; La Societ6du Gaz de Paris v. La Societ6 Anonymede Navigation "Les Armateursfran;ais"[19251 Sess. Cas. 332, [19261 Sess. Cas. (H. L.) 13. The Scottish cases are fully dis-cussed in GraB,INTERNATIONALLAWOFJURISDICTION 1926) c. 16; GLOAGAND HENDER-SON, INTRODUCTION O THE LAW OF SCOTLAND1927) 20; 7 ENCYC. LAWS OF SCOTIAND(1929) 180.36The earliestcaseswere suits betweenalienson foreigncausesof action.See, e.g.,Robertsonv. Kerr (1793), reportedn a note to Reav. Hayden (1807) 3 Mass.24, 25;GreatWesternRy. Co. v. Miller(1869) 19Mich.305; Gardner . Thomas(N. Y. 1817)14Johns. 134,7Am.Dec.445; Johnsonv. Dalton (N. Y. 1823) 1 Cow.543,13Am.Dec.564; Note (1873) 7 AM.L. REV. 17; (1933) 13B. U. L. REv.349.A similarresultwasreached n suits betweenaliensin the federaladmiraltycourts.The Belgenland 1885)114 U. S. 355; OneHundred&Ninety-FourShawls (S. D. N. Y. 1848) Fed. Cas.No.10,521;see ROBlNsoN, ADMIRALTY(1939) ? 3; Coffey,Jurisdiction OverForeignersnAdmiraltyCourts(1925) 13 CALIF.L. REv.93. And in a few cases where the plaintiffwas a residentof anotherstateof the UnitedStates,discretion o refusejurisdictionwasrecognized. eePiercev. EquitableLifeAssurance ociety (1887) 145Mass.56, 12N. E.858; Molonyv. Dows (1859) 8 Abb.Pr.316; Fergusonv. Neilson(1890) 11 N. Y. Supp.524; Morrisv. MissouriPacificRy. Co. (1890) 78 Tex. 17, 14 S.W. 228.But cf. Beale,op.cit.supranote34,at 288.Thecases recollectedn Note(1924)32A. L. R.6.


10/44

388 CALIFORNIALAW REVIEW [Vol.35English courts, relying on both Scottish and Americanprecedents,have accepted the doctrine of forum non conveniens as a means ofpreventingabuse of the court'sprocesswhen the plaintiff'schoice offorum s vexatiousandworksunnecessaryhardshiponthedefendant.3"In 1929 a law review writerbroughtthe termforumnon conven-iens into Americanlaw, contendingthat all Americancourts had in-herent power to decline jurisdictionunder the doctrine." After thisarticle the use of the term became so general that in 1941 JusticeFrankfurter referredto the "familiar doctrine of forum non conven-iens"as a manifestationof a civilizedjudicialsystem whichis "firmlyimbeddedin our law"." Yet few Americancourts have actually ac-ceptedthe doctrine.In most states it has not even beenconsidered.Inothers it has been rejected.'4And today it can be said to be in opera-

37 In Logan v. Bank of Scotland [1906] 1 K. B. 141, the court relied upon Collardv. Beach (1903) 81 App. Div. 582, 81 N. Y. Supp. 619, (1904) 93 App. Div. 339, 87 N. Y.Supp. 884; Longworth v. Hope; Williamson v. North-Eastern Ry. Co., both supra note35. The doctrine has also been applied in Egbert v. Short [1907] 2 Ch. 205; In re Norton'sSettlement [19081 1 Ch. 471. Prior to the Logan case the English law was dominated bythe famous case of Mostyn v. Fabrigas (1775) 1 Cowp. 161, 171, in which Lord Mans-field, in upholding the jurisdiction of the English courts over an action between resi-dents of the Island of Minorca, said: ". . . for it is impossible there ever could exist adoubt, but that a subject born in Minorca has as good a right to appeal to the King'sCourts of Justice, as one who is born within the sound of Bow Bell. . . ." See Leflar,Extrastate Enforcement of Penal and Governmental Claims (1932) 46 HARV.L. REV. 193.

38 Blair, loc. cit. supra note 33. He found only three or four cases in which theAmerican courts had used the term.39 In his dissenting opinion in Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Kepner, supra note 11,at 55.40 Alabama. Steen v. Swadley (1900) 126 Ala. 616, 28 So. 620; Jefferson Island SaltCo. v. E. J. Longyear Co. (1923) 210 Ala. 352, 98 So. 119. Connecticut. See Fine v.Wencke (1933) 117 Conn. 683, 169 Atl. 58. Illinois. Wintersteen v. National CooperageCo. (1935) 361 Ill. 95, 197 N. E. 578; Indiana. Levi v. Kaufman (1895) 12 Ind. App. 347,39 N. E. 1045; Dodgem Corp. v. D. D. Murphy Shows, Inc. (1932) 96 Ind. App. 325,183 N. E. 699, reh'g den., 96 Ind. App. 325, 185 N. E. 169. Michigan. Cofrode v. Gartner

(1890) 79 Mich. 332, 44 N. W. 623. But cf. Gober v. Fed. Life Ins. Co., supra note 28.Minnesota. Boright v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., supra note 13. Missouri. Bright v.Wheelock (1929) 323 Mo. 840, 20 S. W. (2d) 684. Nebraska. Herrmann v. Franklin IceCream Co. (1926) 114 Neb. 468, 208 N. W. 141. North Carolina. McDonald v. Mac-Arthur Bros. Co. (1910) 154 N. C. 122, 69 S. E. 832. Ohio. Mattone v. Argentina (1931)123 Ohio St. 393, 175 N. E. 603. Texas. See Allen v. Bass (Tex. Civ. App. 1932) 47 S. W.(2d) 426, 427; H. Rouw Co. v. Railway Exp. Agency (Tex. Civ. App. 1941) 154 S. W.(2d) 143, 145, (1942) 20 Trx. L. REV.609. Utah. Steed v. Harvey (1898) 18 Utah 367, 54Pac. 1011. Virginia.Morgan v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (192 7) 148Va. 272, 138 S. E. 566. Wis-consin. Eingartner v. Illinois Steel Co. (1896) 94 Wis. 70, 68 N. W. 664; Bourestom v.Bourestom (1939) 231 Wis. 666, 285 N. W. 426.


11/44

1947] FORUMNON CONVENIENS 389tion in barelyhalf a dozenstates4'and,as a result of decisionshandeddownonly this past term,in the federalcourts.YA. State Courts.

Generalacceptanceof the doctrineof forumnon conveniens n thestate courtshas been retardedmoreby the privilegesand immunitiesclause of Article IV of the United States Constitution' than by anyother factor. In the early case of Corfieldv. Coryell," Mr. JusticeWashingtonassertedby dictum that the rightof access to the courtsof a state is one of the privileges protectedby that clause. A long lineof cases in whichthe United States SupremeCourt has approvedthisdictum45eaves little doubt thatany arbitrarydenialby a state of the41 Only the following states appear to have accepted the doctrine generally: Florida.See Hagen v. Viney (1936) 124 Fla. 747, 751, 169 So. 391, 392. Louisiana. Union CityTransfer v. Fields (La. App. 1940) 199 So. 206; cf. Stewart v. Litchenberg (1920) 148La. 195, 86 So. 734. Massachusetts. Universal Adjustment Corp. v. Midland Bank (1933)281 Mass. 303, 184 N. E. 152, 87 A. L. R. 1407. New Hampshire. Jackson & Sons v.Lumbermen's Mut. Casualty Co. (1933) 86 N. H. 341, 168 Atl. 895. New Jersey. SeeKantakevich v. D., L. & W. R. R. Co. (1940) 18 N. J. Misc. 77, 10 A. (2d) 651; QuigleyCo. v. Asbestos Ltd. (1944) 134 N. J. Eq. 312, 35 A. (2d) 432, aff'd, 135 N. J. Eq. 460,39 A. (2d) 135. New York (limited to tort actions). See Gregonis v. Philadelphia & R.C. & I. Co., supra note 28, at 155, 139 N. E. at 226; Murnan v. Wabash Railway Co.(1927) 246 N.Y. 244, 248, 158 N. E. 508, 509.In the following states there are indications that the doctrine might be acceptedwhen a proper case arises: Arkansas. Grovey v. Washington Nat. Ins. Co. (1938) 196Ark. 697, 119 S. W. (2d) 503. California. Leet v. Union Pac. R. R. Co. (1944) 25 Cal. (2d)

605, 155 P. (2d) 42, 158A. L. R. 1008; Estate of Knox (1942) 52 Cal.App. (2d) 338, 126P.(2d) 108. But cf. Hudson v. Von Hamm (1927) 85 Cal.App. 323, 259 Pac. 374. Iowa. Brad-bury v. Chicago, R. I. & Pac. Ry. Co. (1910) 149 Iowa 51, 128N. W. 1.Mississippi. Strick-land v. Humble Oil & Ref. Co. (1943) 194 Miss. 194, 11 So. (2d) 820; Tri-State Transit Co.v. Mondy (1943) 194 Miss. 714,12 So. (2d) 920. Oregon. Horner v. Pleasant CreekMiningCorp. (1940) 165 Ore. 683, 107 P. (2d) 989. Vermont. Morisette v. Canadian Pacific Rail-way Co. (1904) 76 Vt. 267, 56 Atl. 1102; Wellman v. Mead (1919) 93 Vt. 322, 107 Atl.396. Washington. Hunter v. Wenatchee Land Co. (19,05) 36 Wash. 541, 79-Pac. 40. Butcf. Reynolds v. Day (1914) 79 Wash. 499, 140 Pac. 681.42Koster v. Lumbermens Mutual Co. (1947) 330 U. S. 518; Gulf Oil Corp.v. Gilbert,supra note 6.3 U. S. CONST.Art. IV, ? 2, Cl. 1. "The citizens of each State shall be entitled toall privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States."44 (E. D. Pa. 1823) Fed. Cas. No. 3,230. Justice Washington concluded that onlythose privileges and immunities of state citizenship which are "in their nature funda-mental" were protected by the Constitution. In listing the privileges which he consideredfundamental, he included the "right to institute and maintain actions of any kind in thecourts of the state". 6 Fed. Cas. at 552.

45See Ward v. Maryland (1870) 79 U. S. (12 Wall.) 418, 430 (a case involving adiscriminatory tax against nonresident traders); Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co.(1907) 207 U. S. 142, 148; Canadian Northern Ry. Co. v. Eggen (1920) 252 U. S. 553,560; Missouri Pac. R. R. Co. v. Clarendon Boat Oar Co. (1922) 257 U.S. 533, 535;


12/44

390 CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW [Vol.35rightof citizens of other states to sue wouldbe held unconstitutional.As a result,manycourts held that the privilegesandimmunitiesclauseprecluded any discretionarypowerin courts to decline suits betweennonresidentswherethe plaintiffwas an individual citizen of anotherstate." In most such cases it was assumed that a resident plaintiffwould have an absolute right to sue, and the argumentfor refusingjurisdictionover nonresidentswas directedto the burdenon the localcourts and taxpayers incident to trial of cases from other states.Therefore,a strong argumentcould be made that any such exerciseof discretionto refuse jurisdictionwas a clear violation of the spiritand intent of the constitutionalprovision."In New York,48however,the courts took the consistent position that the constitutionalprovi-sionwas not violated since the discriminationwas based on residence,McKnettv. St. Louis &S. F. Ry. Co. (1934) 292U. S. 230,233; Miles v. IllinoisCentralR. Co. (1942) 315 U. S. 698,704.46Barrellv. Benjamin, upranote 1; Cofrodev. Gartner,upranote40; Stateexrel.Prallv. DistrictCourt;Davis v. Minneapolis, t. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co.; Ervingv. Chi-cago & NorthwesternRy. Co., all supranote 13; Statev. Grimm(1911) 239 Mo. 135,143S.W.483;Herrmann . Franklin ce CreamCo.; McDonaldv. MacArthurBros.Co.;Steedv. Harvey; Morganv. PennsylvaniaR. Co., all supranote 40; Reynoldsv. Day,supranote41; Eingartner . IllinoisSteelCo., supranote40; see Hudsonv. VonHamm,supranote 41; Finev. Wencke, upranote 40; Browerv. Watson(1922) 146Tenn.626,244S.W. 362; Deatrick'sAdm'rv. StateLife Ins. Co. (1907) 107 Va. 602,59 S. E. 489;Statev. Fowler(1928) 196Wis.451,220 N. W. 534.SeealsoBlair, op. cit. supranote33,at 12; Note (1930) 18 CA='. L. REv.159.

47In Cofrodev. Gartner, upranote 40, which was long a leading case, the trialcourt justifiedthe exerciseof its discretion o refuseto hear a suit brought by a non-residentby a ratherdetailedshowingof the burdenwhich trial of the case would putuponthe courtand upon the taxpayersof the county.Afterholdingthe privilegesandimmunitiesclauseapplicable,he Michigan upremecourt said at 343,44 N. W. at 626:"No courtor judgehas a lawful rightto deny to suitors the privilegeof bringingandprosecutingheirsuitsuponthe ground hat to entertain hem will entailexpense o thecounty."In Statev. Grimm, upranote 46, at 184,143S. W. at 498, the courtsaid: "Itwouldbe bothunjustand intolerable or one Stateof theUnion to possess he powerandauthority o enact a validstatuteclosing he doors of its courtsto citizensof the UnitedStates,or of otherStates,anddenyto them the rightor privilegeof suingin the courtsthereof,while the citizensof suchStateenjoy that rightor privilege.To so hold wouldbe not only to nullifythe spiritof the provisionsof the FederalConstitutionpreviouslymentioned [Art, IV, ?2 and AmendmentXIV, ? 1], but the letter thereof as well."SeealsoReynoldsv. Day, supranote41; Eingartner . Illinois SteelCo., supranote 40.4sBy far the greatestnumberof cases n whicha discretion o deny jurisdictionofsuits between nonresidents as been exercisedare foundin the New York courts.Thisapparently esults roma long-standingearof theburdenwhich wouldbe castuponthecourts f a general ightof suit wererecognized. ee,e.g.,the concernoverthis possibilityexpressedn Hoes v. NewYork,N. H. & H. R. R. Co. (1903) 173N. Y. 435,66N. E. 119;Collardv. Beach,supranote37.


13/44

19471 FORUM NON CONVENIENS 391not citizenship, f theparties.49 nrealistic s this distinctionwas,"it had somesupportn UnitedStatesSupremeCourtdecisionsnter-pretingthe privilegesand immunities lause"'and was apparentlyadoptedby thatCourtinDouglas v. New Haven R. Co.52In the Douglascase a Connecticut itizenandresidentbroughtsuitagainsta Connecticutorporationn the statecourtsof NewYorkunder he FederalEmployers'LiabilityAct to recoverdamages orpersonal njuriessufferedn Connecticut.The trialcourtexercisedits discretionundera state statute5 to refusejurisdiction nd dis-

49Robinsonv. OceanicSteamNav. Co., supranote 28; Hatfield v. Sisson (1899)28 Misc.255,256,59N. Y. Supp.73; Collardv. Beach,supranote37.This distinctionbetweenresidence ndcitizenshipwas also relieduponin OhioandSouth Carolina o sustain statutesdenyingjurisdictiono local courts of suitsby non-residents gainst oreigncorporations n causesof actionarisingoutside he state. Loftusv. PennsylvaniaRd.Co.; CentralR. R. Co.v. GeorgiaCo.,bothsupranote28; cf. Cum-mingsv. Wingo(1889) 31 S. C.427, 10S.E. 107.50The distinctionbetweenresidence nd citizenship as longbeen attackedby com-mentators."Possiblybeforethe passageof the FourteenthAmendment heremighthavebeen someground or this,but in the light of the provision n that Amendment hat 'AllpersonsbornornaturalizedwithintheUnitedStatesandsubject o thejurisdictionhereofare citizensof the UnitedStatesand of the state wherein hey reside,' t passesmy com-prehension ow sucha contention an for a momentbe consideredustainable."Meyers,ThePrivilegesand Immunitiesof Citizensof theSeveralStates (1903) 1 Mica. L. REV.364,382."Thedistinctionof the New YorkandSouthCarolina ourtsbetween resident'and 'citizen'would,therefore, eem to be merelyverbal,andinsufficiento support heirdecisions." 1903) 17HARV.. REV. 4,55.In Travis v. Yale &TowneMfg. Co. (1920) 252U. S. 60, 78, the court helduncon-stitutionala provisionof the New York IncomeTax Law whichdiscriminated gainstnonresidents, aying: "Of coursethe terms 'resident'and 'citizen'are not synonymous,and in some cases the distinction s important(LaTourettev. McMaster,248 U. S. 465,470); but a general axingscheme uch as the one underconsideration,f it discriminatesagainstall non-residents, as the necessary ffectof includingn the discriminationhosewho are citizensof otherStates;and,if there be no reasonable round or the diversityof treatment,t abridgesheprivileges ndimmunities o whichsuchcitizensareentitled."Cf. Blakev. McClung(1898) 172U. S. 239.51LaTourettev. McMaster(1919) 248 U. S. 465 (sustaininga statute limitingtheinsurance usinessn the stateto residents) cf. Maxwellv. Bugbee(1919) 250U. S. 525(a tax case).5 (1929) 279 U. S. 377. The case is commentedon in Notes (1930) 18 CALIF. .REv. 159; (1932) 30 MIca. L. REV.610; (1930) 39 YiALE.J. 388; (1930) 24 ILL.L.REV. 26.

3 N. Y. GENERALCORP.LAW (1943) ? 225: "An action against a foreign corpora-tion may be maintainedby another oreigncorporation, r by a non-resident,n one ofthe followingcasesonly: . . . (4) Wherea foreign corporations doingbusinesswithinthis state." The statuteis held to give discretion o the courtsto declinejurisdiction fcasesbroughtundersubdivision 4). Waisikoskiv. Philadelphia& ReadingC. & I. Co.(1916) 173App.Div. 538,159N. Y. Supp.906; Bagdonv. Philadelphia&ReadingC.&I.Co. (1917) 178 App. Div. 662, 165 N. Y. Supp. 910.


14/44

392 CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW [Vol.35missed the action, and this was affirmedby the New York Court ofAppeals. In upholding the validity of the statute, Justice Holmesdeliveringthe opinionof the Court said:"But however ftenthe wordresidentmayhave beenusedas equiv-alent to citizen,andforwhatever urposesesidencemayhave beenassumedo followcitizenship,here s nothing o prohibithelegisla-ture fromusing resident'n thestrictprimaryenseof oneactuallyliving ntheplaceforthetime, rrespectivevenof domicile."After referringto New York decisionsupholdingsuch a constructionof the statute, he concluded that under the statute:

"Theres no discriminationetween itizensas such,and nonebe-tweennon-residents ithregardo theseforeign ausesof action.Adistinctionof privileges ccordingo residencemay be baseduponrationalconsiderationsndhas beenupheldby this Court,empha-sizing the difference between citizenshipand residence.55 .. Therearemanifest easons orpreferringesidentsn access o often over-crowdedCourts,both in conveniencend in the fact that broadlyspeakingt is theywhopayformaintainingheCourts oncerned."56As pointed out by commentators,"5 a much more satisfactoryinterpretationof the Douglasandsimilar caseswould be that the priv-ileges and immunitiesclause is not only limited to the protectionofthose privileges and immunitieswhich are "in their nature funda-mental"but even as to suchfundamentalprivilegesonly unreasonablediscriminationsare forbidden.'8But whatever the theory,59he Doug-54 279 U. S. at 386.55Here Justice Holmes cited LaTourette v. McMaster and Maxwell v. Bugbee, both

supra note 51. He said that the decision in Blake v. McClung, supra note 50, was modifiedby the later decision in the LaTourette case, but did not mention Travis v. Yale &TowneMfg. Co., supra note 50.56279 U. S. at 387.57Notes (1930) 18 CALIu.L. REV.159; (1932) 30 MIca. L. REv. 610.58"The results may then be summarized somewhat as follows: Rights guaranteedunder Article IV, Section 2 are not protected absolutely, but only to the extent that astate cannot unreasonably, nor arbitrarily discriminate against non-citizens or non-resi-dents; and the distinction between resident and citizen is valuable only as a factor enter-ing into the determination of the reasonableness of the legislation and not as an indepen-dent element withdrawing the legislation from the provisions of Article IV, Section 2."Note (1930) 18 CALIF.L. REV.159, 163. Cf. Canadian Northern Ry. Co. v. Eggen, supranote 45; Duehay v. Acacia Mut. Life Ins. Co. (App. D. C. 1939) 105 F. (2d) 768, 124A. L. R. 1268.59As recently as 1942, the Supreme Court has said that the Douglas case sustainedthe state statute involved "because it treated citizens and noncitizens alike and testedtheir right to maintain an adctionby their residence or nonresidence". Miles v. IllinoisCentral R. Co., supra note 11, at 704, n. However, only four justices appear to have con-curred in this portion of the opinion.


15/44

1947]1 FORUMNON CONVENIENS 393las case has recentlybeen cited with evidentapproval"and the valid-ity of a reasonable state statute vesting discretion in its courts torefuse to hear suits between nonresidents-as distinguished fromnoncitizens-seems clear.What then of the constitutionalvalidity of a state court applyinga nonstatutoryruleof forumnon conveniensto dismissa suit broughtby a nonresident?If the court should dismissa suit solely because theplaintiffwas a citizenof anotherstate, the validity of its action wouldseemopen to seriousquestion.If the suit shouldbe dismissed becausethe plaintiff was not a resident "in the strict primary sense of oneactuallylivingin the placefor the time,irrespectiveevenof domicile",the validity of its action would appearto be settled by the Douglascase. What would be the result,however,if the court excludeda non-residentplaintiffin the applicationof the broad doctrineof forumnonconveniens underwhichany plaintiff,residentor nonresident,citizenor noncitizen,may be deniedthe rightto bringhis suit when the endsof justice would be better served by trial in another court? Clearly,here no substantial question as to the constitutionalvalidity of thecourt'sactionwouldappearsincetheapplicationof the doctrinewoulddepend on other factors than the mere residence or citizenship ofthe parties.The decision in the Douglas case, however, has not resulted inany widespread movement by the states to adopt the doctrine offorum non conveniens.In fact, not even the states which based theirrejectionof the doctrineon Article IV, Section 2, have been affected.In Minnesota6'and Missouri62he courtsdismissedthe Douglas caseby saying that in any event the statutes of the state deprived thecourts of discretionto refuse jurisdiction.In Wisconsin' the courtshave continuedto rely on the privilegesand immunitiesclause, com-pletely ignoringthe Douglas case.64

Go ulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, supra note 6, at 504. See also dissenting opinion of JusticeReed in Koster v. Lumbermens Mutual Co., supra note 42, at 534; Jackson, Full Faithand Credit-The Lawyer's Clause of the Constitution (1945) 45 COL.L. REV.1, 31.61Boright v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co.; Hoch v. Byram, both supra note 13.62Bright v. Wheelock, supra note 40.63 State ex rel. Smith v. Belden (1931) 205 Wis. 158, 236 N. W. 542; Sheehan v.Lewis (1935) 218 Wis. 588, 260 N. W. 633; Bourestom v. Bourestom supra note 40. Seealso Fine v. Wencke, supra note 40.64 In addition to the possible bar of the privileges and immunities clause, the doc-trine of forum non conveniens might have been largely excluded from application to suitsbased on causes of action arising in other states of the United States if the full faith and

credit clause (U. S. CONST.,ART.IV, ?1) had been construed as applying. But in theearly case of Anglo-American Prov. Co. v. Davis Prov. Co. (1903) 191 U.S. 373, the


16/44

394 CALIFORNIALAWREVIEW [Vol.35B. FederalCourts.

Developmentof the doctrine of forumnon conveniensin the fed-eral courts has been impeded by the oft-expressedassertion that afederal courthaving jurisdictionof the partiesand the subjectmatterof the actionis undera duty to exercisethat jurisdiction.In a numberof early cases in whichdismissalof the action in the federal courtwassoughtbecausean actionwaspendingbetween he samepartiesforthe same cause in a state court or the state statutes providedfor anexclusiveremedyin the state courts,the United States SupremeCourtupheldthe jurisdictionof the federalcourts,makingbroadstatementsto the effect that a federalcourthavingjurisdiction s undera duty toexerciseit.' And a dictum in the SecondEmployers'LiabilityCases'"to the effect that the "existenceof the jurisdictioncreatesan implica-tion of duty to exercise it, and that its exercisemay be onerousdoesnot militate againstthat implication"was reliedupon in a numberoflower federal court cases to supporttheir refusal to apply forumnonconveniensin FederalEmployers'Liability Act cases.67United States Supreme Court held that the New York statute which then denied juris-diction to the courts of the state in suits by nonresidents against foreign corporationsdid not violate the full faith and credit clause when applied to deny jurisdiction of a suitbetween two foreign corporations on an Illinois judgment. Recently the Court has saidby way of dictum that under the clause a state "may in appropriate cases apply thedoctrine of forum non conveniens". Broderick v. Rosner (1935) 294 U. S. 629, 643; seealso Williams v. North Carolina (1942) 317 U. S. 287, 294, n.; Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert,supra note 6, at 504. These cases leave little doubt that the full faith and credit clausedoes not prevent application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens. See Jackson, loc.cit. supra note 60.6-5Cases where state statutes attempted to restrict remedies to state courts: Suydamv. Broadnax (1840) 39 U. S. (14 Pet.) 66; The Union Bank of Tennessee v. Jolly's Adm'rs(1855) 59 U. S. (18 How.) 503; Hyde v. Stone (1857) 61 U. S. (20 How.) 170, 175("But the courts of the United States are bound to proceed to judgment, and to affordredress to suitors before them, in every case to which their jurisdiction extends. Theycannot abdicate their authority or duty in any case in favor of another jurisdiction.");Chicot County v. Sherwood (1893) 148 U. S. 529, 534. Case where another action waspending in a state court: McClellan v. Carland (1910) 217 U. S. 268, 282. See also Cohensv. Virginia (1821) 19 U. S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 404; Denick v. Railroad Co. (1880) 103 U. S.11, 18; Willcox v. Consolidated Gas Co. (1909) 212 U. S. 19, 40; Southern CaliforniaTel. Co. v. Hopkins (C. C. A. 9th, 1926) 13 F. (2d) 814, 820, aff'd., Hopkins v. SouthernCalifornia Tel. Co. (1928) 275 U. S. 393.

66 (1912) 223 U. S. 1, 58. This statement was directed to the holding of the case,i.e., state courts could not refuse to hear cases brought under the F. E. L. A. because oflocal policy or because of the inconvenience of applying different standards to the em-ployers' liability in cases arising under the federal and state statutes.60 Schendel v. McGee (C. C. A. 8th, 1924) 300 Fed. 273; Southern Ry. Co. v. Coch-ran (C. C. A. 6th, 1932) 56 F. (2d) 1019; Norris v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. (D. Minn. 1925)18 F. (2d) 584; cf. Smith v. Empire State-Idaho M. & D. Co. (C. C. E. D. Wash. 1904)127 Fed. 462, 465.


17/44

19471 FORUM NON CONVENIENS 395In other ypesof cases,however,t wasrecognizedhat thegrantof powerto the federalcourts does not implyan absoluteduty toexercise that power.68At an early date it was held that the federalcourts had discretion to refuse to hear suits in admiralty broughtbe-tweenaliens."6An examinationof these cases causedthe Court to sayin CanadaMalting Co. v. Paterson Co.:""Obviously,he propositionhat a courthavingjurisdictionmustexercise t, is not universally rue; else the admiralty ourt couldneverdeclineurisdictionn thegroundhat thelitigations betweenforeigners. oris it trueof courtsadministeringthersystemsof ourlaw.Courtsof equityand of law alsooccasionallyecline,n thein-terestof justice,to exercise urisdiction,where he suit is betweenaliensornon-residentsrwhere orkindred easons helitigation anmoreappropriatelye conductedn a foreignribunal."

Shortly after the Canada Malting Co. case the SupremeCourt inRogers v. GuarantyTrust Co.7"recognizeddiscretionin the federalcourts to decline jurisdictionin anotherclass of cases-those wherethe internal affairsof foreign corporationswere involved:72"While hedistrict ourthadjurisdictionoadjudgeherightsof theparties, t doesnotfollow hat it wasbound o exertthatpower....It was free ntheexercise f a sounddiscretionodeclineopassuponthe meritsof the controversynd to relegateplaintiff o an appro-priate forum .... But it safely may be said that jurisdictionwill bedeclinedwheneveronsiderationsf convenience,fficiency ndjus-ticepointto the courtsof the Stateof the domicile sappropriateri-bunals orthedeterminationf theparticularase."3Morerecentlythe SupremeCourt n Burfordv. Sun Oil Co.7r x-tended the list of exceptional situations75where the federal courts68See generally American Automobile Ins. Co. v. Freundt (C. C. A. 7th, 1939) 103F. (2d) 613.69The Belgenland, supra note 36; Charter Shipping Co. v. Bowring, etc. (1930)281 U. S. 515; see Coffey, loc. cit. supra note 36.70 (1932) 285 U. S. 413, 422; cf. Langnes v. Green (1931) 282 U. S. 531, 541.71 (1933) 288 U. S. 123.72The rule had previously become general in state cases that whenever the internalaffairs of a foreign corporation were involved in a suit, jurisdiction would be declined.See generally FLETCHER,CYCLOPEDIAOF CORPORATIONS (Perm. ed. 1933) ?? 8425-8445;RESTATEMENT,ONFLICTFLAWS 1934) ?? 192-202; Note (1933) 33 COL.L. REv. 492.The development of the rule in the federal courts is traced in detail in Note (1946)46 COL.L. REv. 413.73288 U. S. at 130, 131.74 (1943) 319 U. S. 315.75E.g., cases holding that federal courts may decline to interfere (1) with statecriminal prosecutions: Spielman Motor Co. v. Dodge (1935) 295 U. S. 89; Beal v. Mis-


18/44

396 CALIFORNIALAW REVIEW [Vol.5could refuse to exercisetheirequity jurisdiction.The Courtheld thatjurisdictioncould be refused in a diversity case on essentially forumnon conveniens grounds, i.e., when a decision by the federal courtwould interfere with a state administrativesystem for regulatingtheoil industry."The decisions in Meredith v. Winter Haven" and Williams v.Green Bay & W. R. Co.,7 however, cast doubt upon the generalavailability of the doctrine of forum non conveniens in the federalcourts. The Meredith case limited the Burford case to its facts andexpressedthepolicy that a federalcourtwithjurisdiction n a diversitycase must exercise that jurisdiction, with the narrow exception ofsituations where a federal equity court in the exercise of its equityjurisdictionmightrefuseto grantan equitableremedy.

"Thediversity urisdictionwasnot conferredorthe benefitof thefederal ourtsor to serve heirconvenience.tspurposewasgenerallyto afford o suitorsanopportunityn suchcases,at theiroption, oassert heirrights n thefederal ather han n thestatecourts."79In the Williams case the court limited the applicationof Rogers v.GuarantyTrust Co.,sO oldingthat the mere fact that internalaffairsof a foreigncorporationare involved is not enoughto justify the fed-eral courts in refusing jurisdiction.However, by dictum the Courtsouri Pacific R. Co (1941) 312 U.S. 45; Douglas v. Jeannette (1943) 319 U. S. 157;(2) with collection of state taxes or with fiscal affairs of the state: Matthews v. Rodgers(1932) 284 U. S. 521; Stratton v. St. L. S. W. Ry. (1932) 284 U. S. 530; Great Lakes Co.v. Huffman (1943) 319 U. S. 293; (3) with the state administrative function of pre-scribing the local rates of public utilities: Central Kentucky Co. v. Railroad Comm. ofKy. (1933) 290 U. S. 264; (4) with the liquidation of an insolvent state bank by a stateadministrative officer: Pennsylvania v. Williams (1935) 294 U. S. 176; Gordon v. Wash-ington (1935) 295 U. S. 30; Kelleam v. Maryland Casualty Co. (1941) 312 U. S. 377.See also Di Giovanni v. Camden Ins. Ass'n (1935) 296 U. S. 64; Thompson v. MagnoliaPetroleum Co. (1940) 309 U. S. 478; Railroad Comm. v. Pullman Co. (1941) 312 U. S.496; Chicago v. Fieldcrest Dairies (1942) 316 U. S. 168. The cases are discussed in Notes(1944) 53 YALEL. J. 788; (1943) 56 HARV.L. REV.1162; (1944) 18 TULANE . REv.492.76See also Railroad Comm. v. Oil Co. (1940) 310 U. S. 573.77 (1943) 320 U. S. 228. This was a diversity case in which plaintiffs sought declara-tory relief as to the extent of liability of a Florida municipality upon its refunding bonds.The circuit court of appeals held that in view of the conflict and uncertainty among theFlorida courts as to the applicable state law and the fact that no federal question wasinvolved, the federal court should refuse jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reversed, hold-ing that mere difficulty of ascertaining state law was not a sufficient basis for refusing toexercise diversity jurisdiction.

78 (1946) 326 U. S. 549.79320 U. S. at 234.so Supra note 71.


19/44

1947] FORUMNON CONVENIENS 397asserted that the doctrine of forum non conveniensmight apply topermita federal court to decline an internal affairs case wherethe suitwouldbe vexatious or oppressive,or wherethe relief soughtmightbeso extensive or call for such detailed and continuingsupervisionthatthe matter could be betterhandlednearerhome.81The question of the power of federal courts to apply forum nonconveniens was settled only this past term in the cases of Koster v.LumbermensMutual Co.8" ndGulfOilCorp.v. Gilbert.83 he Kostercase was a derivativeaction broughtin the federaldistrict court forthe Eastern District of New Yorkby a New Yorkpolicyholderagainstan Illinois insurancecompanyand other Illinois defendants. The dis-trict court found that an unnecessaryburden would be placed on thedefendantsby trial in New York wherenone of the witnessesnor therecordswere available and that the suit involved the internal affairsof a foreign corporation.A motion to dismiss under the doctrineofforum non conveniens was granted and the second circuit court ofappeals affirmed.The SupremeCourt in a 5-to-4 decision held thatsince the defendant had shown much harassment and the plaintiffhad shown little countervailingbenefit to himself in the choice offorum, the judgment should be affirmed.84The Court added, how-ever, that the mere fact that internalaffairsof a foreign corporationwere involved would not be enoughto justify the dismissal.

"That is one,but onlyone, factorwhichmayshowconveniencefpartiesorwitnesses,heappropriatenessf trial in a forum amiliarwith the law of thecorporation'somicile, nd theenforceabilityftheremedyf onebe granted.Butthe ultimatenquirys where rialwill bestserve heconvenienceftheparties nd heendsofjustice."5The Gilbertcase was the first suit at law for money damagestocome before the SupremeCourtin which forum non convenienswasinvoked as a defense. A Virginiaresidentbroughta suit for damagesin the United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of New

York againsta Pennsylvaniacorporation,allegingthat the plaintiff'swarehousein Virginiahad burnedas the result of defendant'snegli-gence in deliveringgasolineto the warehouse anks andpumps.Juris-81326 U. S. at 554. See Note (1946) 46 CoL. L. REV.413.82Supra note 42.83Supra note 6.84The dissenting justices did not question the general validity of the defense offorum non conrveniensbut argued that in this case the defendant had not made a suf-

ficient showing to justify its application.85330 U. S. at 527.


20/44


21/44

1947] FORUMNON CONVENIENS 399kins.Y2 he second circuitcourtof appealshas held both ways on thisquestion" and in the Williams,94Koster"o nd Gilbert"9ases the Su-preme Court expressly refused to decide the question, assuming ineach case that the same result would have been reached f the state lawwereapplied.It has beenarguedthat forumnon conveniens is essen-tially a jurisdictionalquestionwhich must be decidedby the federalcourtswithoutregardto state rules on the subject.9'That the SupremeCourtmay eventually so hold is at least suggestedby its assertion,inanother connection,in the Koster case that we "are concernedherewith the autonomousadministrationof the federal courts in the dis-charge of their own judicial duties"."C. Federal Employers' Liability Act Cases.

The doctrineof forumnon conveniens can be most useful in suitsagainst railroads under the Federal Employers' Liability Act wherethe most flagrantexamplesof abuse of the venueprivilegeare found.But the United States SupremeCourthas raised considerabledoubtas to the availabilityof the doctrinein such cases in eitherthe state orfederal courts. The matter was thought to be settled in favor of theapplicabilityof the doctrineby the holdingin Douglas v. New HavenR. Co.99

"[TheFederalEmployers' iabilityAct] doesnotpurporto requireState Courts o entertainuitsarisingundert, butonlyto empowerthem o doso,so farastheauthority fthe UnitedStates s concerned.It mayverywellbe that f theSupreme ourtof NewYorkweregiven92 (1938) 304 U. S. at 64.93,Holding that the state law controls: Weiss v. Routh (C. C. A. 2d, 1945) 149 F.(2d) 193. Holding that the state law does not control: Gilbert v. Gulf Oil Corporation(C. C. A. 2d, 1946) 153 F. (2d) 883, rev'd, (1947) 330 U. S. 501; Koster v. Lumbermen'sMutual Co. (C. C. A. 2d, 1946) 153 F. (2d) 888, aff'd, (1947) 330 U. S. 518.9326 U. S. at 558.95330 U. S. at 529.9 330 U. S. at 509.97 (1946) 14 U. or CrHL. . REV.97. See also Koster v. Lumbermens Mutual Co.,supra note 93. Cf. Note (1946) 46 COL.L. REV.413, 425.8 330 U. S. at 520, n. The Court made this statement in distinguishing cases such asthose cited in note 65, supra, in which it had been held that a federal court with juris-diction must exercise it.99279 U. S. at 387; cf. Second Employers' Liability Cases, supra note 66, at 56. Theruling of the Douglas case was approved by dictum in McKnett v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co.,supra note 45, at 233: "While Congress has not attempted to compel states to providecourts for the enforcement of the Federal Employers' Liability Act, Douglas v. New

York, N. H. & H. R. Co.... the Federal Constitution prohibits state courts of generaljurisdiction from refusing to do so solely because the suit is brought under a federal law."


22/44

400 CALIFORNIA AWREVIEW [Vol. 5no discretion,beingotherwise ompetent,t would be subjectto aduty. But thereis nothing n the Act of Congresshatpurportsoforcea duty uponsuchCourtsas againstanotherwisealidexcuse."However, some question as to the present scope of this ruling israisedby recent cases holdingthat state courts have no powerto en-join prosecutionof actions under the F. E. L. A.'OOn Baltimore &Ohio R. Co. v. Kepner,o?0an injunctionwas sought in an Ohio courtagainst the prosecution by an Ohio resident of an action under theF. E. L. A. in the federal district court in New York. The injurieswhich were the basis of the suit were received in Ohio, and the peti-tionerarguedthat a heavy burdenwould be cast uponit by defendingthe suit in New York in view of the many witnesseswho would haveto be transportedthere. The Ohio courts held that the venue provi-sions of the F. E. L. A. deprivedthem of powerto enjoin prosecutionof the suit. The Supreme Court affirmed,holding that the federalstatute conferreduponthe injuredemployeethe privilegeof bringingsuit wherever the railroad was doing business and that under thesupremacyclause"nostate courtmay interferewith the privilege,forthe benefitof the carrieror the nationaltransportation ystem, on thegroundof inequitybased on cost, inconvenienceor harassment. .. Aprivilegeof venue, grantedby the legislativebody which createdthisright of action, cannot be frustrated for reasons of convenienceor

expense."'02 The Courtmadeno referenceto the Douglas case nor tothe possibilityof applyingthe doctrine of forumnon conveniensin theforum state. In Miles v. Illinois Central R. Co.,o03he Tennesseecourts, under circumstancessimilar to those in the Kepner case, is-suedan injunctionagainstprosecutingan actionunderthe F. E. L. A.in the state courts of Missouri.The Courtheld this action invalid onthe authorityof the Kepnercase and said by way of dictumthat theMissouricourtswould be required o hearthe suit undertheprivilegesand immunitiesclause. The Courtdistinguishedthe Douglas case,'0'and then said:"This s not to saythatstatescannotcontrolheircourts.Wedonotdealherewiththepower f Missouri yjudicialdecision rlegislative

100oorior to these decisions the state courts frequently granted injunctions in F. E.L. A. cases. See authorities in notes 18 and 21, supra.lo1 Supra note 11. See law review articles in note 21, supra; Note (1942) 14 RocKYMT. L. REV.126; (1942) 16 TULANEL. REV.290; (1942) 90 U. oF PA. L. REV.489.102314 U. S. at 53, 54.lo3 Supra note 11.104Supra note 59.


23/44

19471 FORUMNON CONVENIENS 401enactmentoregulatehe use of its courtsgenerally, s wasapprovedin the Douglas[case]..... We areconsideringnother tate'spowerto so control ts own citizensthat they cannotexercise he federalprivilege f litigating federal ight n the courtof another tate."'05

In a concurring opinion, Justice Jackson said that he did not agreewith the dictum that the Missouri courts must hear the case. Fourjustices dissented.In Leet v. Union Pac. R. R. Co.,1" the Californiasupremecourtread the Miles and Kepnercases as decidingthat the venue privilegeconferredby the F. E. L. A. is absolute and cannot be defeatedon thegroundof forum non conveniens.The United States SupremeCourtdenied certiorari.107In Herb v. Pitcairn,"oshe SupremeCourtof theUnited Statesquotedwith approval, n anotherconnection,the quota-tion from the Douglas case set out above. But in Gulf Oil Corp. v.Gilbert that Court appearsto approve by dictum the position takenby the Californiacourt in the Leet case:

"It is truethatin casesunder he FederalEmployers' iabilityAct... we haveheld thatplaintiff'shoiceof a forum annotbedefeatedon thebasisofforumnonconveniens. utthiswasbecausehespecialvenueact underwhich thosecasesarebroughtwas believed o re-quire t."10"The Courtcited the Kepnerand Miles casesas authorityfor this state-ment. In those cases, however, the Court was not requiredto decidethe questionof the availabilityof the plea of forumnon conveniens nthe forumcourtsince the action in each was for an injunctionagainstsuit in anotherjurisdiction.The two situationspresentdifferentcon-siderationsand it is hoped that when the issue is squarelypresentedthe Court will hold that the plea of forumnon conveniens is available

105315 U. S. at 704.loaSupra note 41; (1945) 58 HARV.L. REV.877; (1945) 18 So. CALIF. L. REV.281.Plaintiff was appointed administratrix of the estates of Thatcher and Utterbackwho were killed in Portland,Oregon,while in the employ of the defendantrailroad.Plaintiffbroughtsuit for wrongfuldeath in the SuperiorCourt in Los Angelescounty.The railroadbroughtsuit in an Oregoncourtto enjointhe heirs of the decedents romprosecuting he Californiaaction.The SupremeCourtof Oregonreversed he decreesof the Oregon rialcourtgranting he injunctions.Union Pac.R. Co.v. Utterback, upranote 9. The United StatesSupremeCourtdeniedcertiorari. 1944) 323 U. S. 711.Mean-while the California ourt had refused o decline urisdiction f the caseand this actionwas affirmedn the Leetcase.107 (1945) 325 U. S. 866.os8 1944) 324 U.S. 117,120.100330 U. S. at 505.


24/44

402 CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW [Vol.to assist in curbingthe abuses which have arisen in suits under theF. E. L. A."o

II. PRACTICAL OPERATION OF THE DOCTRINE OFForum Non Conveniens.Oursurveythus far has shown that with the possible exceptionofcases arisingunder the FederalEmployers'Liability Act there are nofederal constitutional or statutory provisions preventing the wide-spread applicationof the doctrine of forum non conveniens in bothstate and federal courts. It is not enough,however,to arguethat trial

courts should have discretionto refuse to hear cases under the doc-trine. Meaningmust be given to the phrase.Trial judges must knowwhat factors they are to considerwhen decidingwhetherto exercisetheir discretion."'-More important, litigants must have some basisfor forecasting a court's ruling on assumptionof jurisdictionif un-necessary expense and wasted time are to be avoided."2And hereappellate courts have not, in fact, left the trial courts with untram-melled discretion."3They either have substituted their own discre-tion for that of the trial court,"4or have limited the scope of the trial110The fundamentalolution,of course, ies in removing he necessity or such suitsby adoptingan adequateworkmen's ompensationystemto coveremployeesof inter-staterailroads.SeeWinters,op. cit. supranote 14,at 144.111 BOWERS,JUDICIALDISCRETIONOF TRIAL COURTS(1931) ? 10.112JusticeBlack,dissentingn GulfOilCorp.v. Gilbert, upranote6, at 516, arguedthat the doctrineof forum non conveniens houldnot be extended o law casesin thefederalcourtsbecauseof the uncertaintyproduced."The broad andindefinitediscretionleft to federal courts to decide the question of convenience from the welter of factorswhich are relevant to such a judgment, will inevitably produce a complex of close and

indistinguishable decisions from which accurate prediction of the proper forum will be-come difficult, if not impossible." However, in most cases where the plaintiff has thechoice of several forums in which to sue, there will be no doubt of his right to bring suitin most of them. Only when he seeks to sue in the more unlikely forums must he weighthe disadvantages of uncertainty against the advantages he seeks in the forum. SeeDainow, op. cit. supra note 24, at 888. And if the factors governing the exercise of dis-cretion are more closely defined as additional cases come before the appellate courts, thisuncertainty will be reduced.113 See Weiss v. Routh, supra note 93, at 195: "Here, as elsewhere, although judicialdiscretion does indeed imply that the limits are not rigidly fixed, it does not mean thatthere are none .... ." Cf. Langnes v. Green, supra note 70, at 541: "When invoked as aguide to judicial action it [the term 'discretion'] means a sound discretion, that is to say,a discretion exercised not arbitrarily or wilfully, but with regard to what is right andequitable under the circumstances and the law, and directed by the reason and conscienceof the judge to a just result." See also Universal Adjustment Corp. v. Midland Bank,supra note 41.114Hoes v. New York, N. H. &H. R. R. Co., supra note 48; Collard v. Beach, supranote 37; Jackson & Sons v. Lumbermens Mutual Co., supra note 41. In Williams v.


25/44

1947]1 FORUM NON CONVENIENS 403court'sdiscretion.x15 f majorimportance, hen, is an examinationofthe guidepostswhichhavebeenerected or the exerciseof the trialcourt's discretion.At the outset we can put aside those cases, now thought of as apart of the doctrine,wherethe court refuses to hear a suit becauseofits inability to give effectiverelief."6Wherethe procedural aw of theforum affords no remedy comparableto that provided in the juris-diction creating the right of action,"7 where the relief demandedwouldinvolve detailed and continuoussupervisionof activities in an-otherjurisdiction,"8or where for otherreasons the court cannotmakeits decisioneffective,courtshave alwaysrefusedjurisdiction."9Theseare rarecases, arisingmost often when the internalaffairsof foreigncorporationsare involved, and the special difficultiespresented bysuch cases have been fully discussedelsewhere.'oOurmain considerationhere will be to examine those rules whichgovern the trial court in the exercise of its discretion when no doubtis raised as to the effectivenessof the court's decree.The cases willbe reviewedin an attempt to determine(a) who is to be benefitedbyapplicationof the doctrine of forumnon conveniensand the effect ofthe answerto this questionon (b) the factors which will justify theexercise of discretion to decline jurisdiction,and (c) the proceduralrules governing applicationof the doctrine.Green Bay & W. R. Co., supra note 78, the United States Supreme Court appeared togive little or no scope to the discretion of the trial court in reversing its decision to assumejurisdiction. See (1946) 59 HARV.L. REV.621. But cf. Koster v. Lumbermens Mutual Co.,supra note 42, and the discussion infra.115The conventional statement is that the assumption of jurisdiction is ordinarilywithin the sound judicial discretion of the trial court and that its ruling will not be dis-turbed on appeal unless an abuse of that discretion can be shown. Canada Malting Co.v. Paterson Co., supra note 70; The Kanto Maru (C. C. A. 9th, 1940) 112 F. (2d) 564;Universal Adjustment Corp. v. Midland Bank; Murnan v. Wabash Railway Co.; Hornerv. Pleasant Creek Mining Corp., all supra note 41; State v. Fowler, supra note 46. Whatthe courts actually do in these cases, however, is best summarized by BOWERS,p. cit.supra note 111, at 86: "It is manifest here, however, that, as in most other phases of lawinvolving judicial discretion, the trial court's ruling will be declared conclusive when,and when only, it accords with the views of the appellate tribunal as to what ought tohave been done in the particular case." Cf. 1 WIGMORE,VIDENCE3rd ed. 1940) 312.

116 See generally Williams v. Green Bay &W. R. Co., supra note 78, at 555.117Slater v. Mexican National R. R. Co. (1904) 194 U. S. 120; RESTATEMENT,CON-FLICTOF LAWS (1931) ??608, 609.

118Rothstein v. Rothstein (1947) 272 App. Div. 26, 68 N. Y. S. (2d) 305.119See CLAax,EQUITY1919) ? 14; Note (1946) 46 CoL. L. REV.413, 416, n.12oAuthorities cited in note 72, supra.


26/44

404 CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW [Vol.35A. WhoIs To Be Benefitedby the Doctrine.The generalinference to be drawn from the Latin phrase is thatjurisdictionshould be declinedwhen the forum is inconvenient.Butinconvenient to whom? The court? The plaintiff? The defendant?Even if we have ananswerto thesequestions,is it enoughthat the scaleis weightedmoreheavilyon the side of inconvenience o the defendantwhenthe plaintiffhas acted in good faith? In otherwords,must therebe anelementof abuse of courtprocessbeforejurisdiction s declined?Perhaps, the search should be a broader one for that forumin whichthe endsof justicewill bestbe served.Obviously,these questionsmustbe answeredbeforewe know anythingof the meaningof the doctrineof forumnon conveniens.As the doctrine has developedin Americancourts emphasishasbeen placed primarilyon inconvenienceto the court as the principalreason for refusing jurisdiction.As early as 1848 a federal court indeclining to hear an admiralty suit between British subjects said:". .. it would be lamentable if courts were compelled to defer the busi-ness of the citizens of the country to bestow their time on litigationsbetweenpartiesowingno allegianceto its laws, and contributing n noway to its support."'2'In New York, where the doctrineof forumnonconvenienshas had its fullest development,the principalreasongivenfor declining jurisdictionhas been avoidance of the burden on thelocal courts and taxpayers.Thus in 1890 in Fergusonv. Neilson thecourt was able to say:'

"It is the well-settled ule of this state that,unlessspecialreasonsareshown o existwhichmake t necessary rproper o do so, thecourtswillnot retain urisdictionf anddeterminectionsbetweenparties esidingn another tateforpersonalnjuries eceivedn thatstate..... The reasonof the ruleis obvious,--becausehe courtsofthis stateshouldnot bevexedwithlitigationsbetweennon-residentsovercausesof actionarising utsideof ourownterritorialimits.Ourcourtsarenotsupportedythepeople oranysuchpurpose."In 1903 the New York Courtof Appealsreversedthe action of a trialcourtin assumingjurisdictionof a suit for the wrongfuldeath in Con-

121OneHundred& Ninety-FourShawls,supranote 36, at 705.Accord:Atchison,T. & S.F. Ry. Co.v. Weeks(C. C.A.5th,1918) 254Fed. 513; Heinev. New York LifeIns.Co., supranote9; Goldman . Furness,Withy&Co. (S. D. N. Y. 1900) 101 Fed.467.122Supranote 37, at 504.This suit was an actionfor damages or personalnjuriessustainedn Rhode Island.Both partieswereRhodeIslandresidents.See also Robinsonv. OceanicSteamNay. Co., supranote 28; Dewitt v. Buchanan 1868) 54 Barb.31.


27/44

19471 FORUMNON CONVENIENS 405necticut of a Connecticut resident which was broughtby a local ad-ministrator whose appointment had been fraudulently obtained,and said:"If thiscan be done, t willopenwide the floodgates f litigationnsimilar ases, stablish new egal ndustry, nd mpose herebyuponouralready verworkedourts heobligationo tryactions mportedfroma foreignurisdiction."1The emphasisof the New York courts on local interests as the basisfor the doctrineis made even clearerby the limitation of the doctrinein that state to tort actions. In contract actions and otheractions of acommercialcharacter,wherepresumablysome benefit will ultimatelyaccrue to the state throughencouragingthe use of its courts in thefurtherance of business activities,'24 the trial court has no discretionto refuse urisdiction."'Thisruleis appliedeventhough hepartiesare nonresidentsor aliens and the defendant is able to show seriousinconvenience or hardship if he is called upon to defend in NewYork." This emphasis in New York on inconvenience to the court

12 Hoes v.New York,N.H. &H. R.R.Co.,supranote48.Forothercases nwhich heNew York courtshavestronglyemphasizedhe localburden, ee Collardv. Beach,supranote 37; Gainerv. Donner(1931) 140 Misc.841,251N. Y. Supp. 713; Reepv. Butcher(1941) 176Misc.369,27 N. Y. S. (2d) 330.124 n the leadingcase of Wertheimv. Clergue(1900) 53 App. Div. 122, 125,65N. Y. Supp.750, 753,the courtreversed he trialcourt'sdecisionrefusing o take juris-dictionof an actionby a German esidentagainsta Maineresident or deceitbased onfalse representationsnducing he plaintiff o enter nto a contract.The courtrecognizedthe generalrule applicable o tort cases and then said: "But we know of no reasonfounded n publicpolicy,andcertainlynothingresting n precedent,which will close thecourtsof this State to non-resident uitorswho invoke theiraid againstothernon-resi-dentssojourningwithinour borders or the enforcement f causesof actionarisingoutof commercialransactions ndaffectingpropertyor propertyrights.No suchnarroworilliberalpolicyhasyet beendeclaredby our courts.... [We] certainlydo not intend toestablisha precedentwhichwouldshutourcourts o greatnumbers f foreignmerchants,non-residents f theState,whomayfindtheirnon-resident ebtors, raudulent rhonest,temporarily within our jurisdiction .. ."125Wedemannv. United States Trust Co. (1932) 258 N.Y. 315, 179 N. E. 712;Rodgerv. Bliss (1927) 130Misc. 168,223 N. Y. Supp.401; Osborne . BancoAleman-Antioqueno (1941) 176 Misc. 664, 29 N.Y. S. (2d) 236; RederietOceanAktieselskabv. W. A. Kirk&Co. (N. Y. Sup.Ct.1944) 51 N. Y. S. (2d) 565; cf. Rothsteinv. Roth-stein, supranote 118.126In an action by a residentof Mexicoagainsta corporationdoing business nMexicoon a contractentered nto and to be performedn Mexicothe court refused odismissdespitea showingthat all the witnesses,dataand correspondenceeededon thetrialof theaction were n Mexico.McMahonv. NationalCityBankof NewYork (1931)142Misc.268,254N. Y. Supp.279. Accord:Crane,Hayes&Co. v. New York,N. H. &H. R. R. Co. (1927) 131Misc.71,225N. Y. Supp.775; cf.Holzerv. DeutscheReichbahn-Gesellschaft1938) 277N. Y. 474,14 N. E. (2d) 798;Mandlv. Mandl(1946) 61N. Y. S.(2d) 364.


28/44

406 CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW [Vol.35was reflected n the decisionsin otherstates'27andapprovedby Blair,who suggested that a principal benefit to accrue from widespreadapplicationof the doctrine of forumnon convenienswould be relief of"calendarcongestionby partially divertingat its source the flood oflitigationby which our courts arebeing overwhelmed"."'An entirelydifferentconceptionof the doctrine of forumnon con-veniensis presentedin the Englishand Scottish cases. In the Scottishcases inconvenienceto the court is definitelyrejectedas a factor andit is said that the plea of forum non conveniens will be upheld onlywhen it can be shown that the ends of justice will best be served bytrial in anotherforum.The Scottishpointof view is set forth in detailin La Socigtedu Gaz de Paris v. La Socite' Anonymede Navigation"Les Armateursfrancais."'29 In that case a French manufacturingfirmsued Frenchshipownersin a Scottish court (basing jurisdictionon the arrest of a vessel ownedby the defendants and found in Scot-land) for the breach of a contract on a charter party executed inFrancefor deliveryof goods fromEnglandto France. The ship sank.The plaintiffscontended that it was improperly oaded, that it was aship of Frenchdesign notoriously unseaworthy,and that the defend-ant had not taken steps recommendedby the French authoritiestomake it seaworthy.The Scottish court dismissed on a plea of forumnon conveniens and the House of Lords affirmed.Lord ChancellorCave summarizedthe doctrine:

"... if inanycase t appearedo theCourt,aftergivingconsiderationto theinterests f bothpartiesandto therequirementsf justice, hatthe casecouldnot besuitably ried n theCourtnwhich t was nsti-tuted, and full justicecouldnot be done thereto the parties,butcouldbe donein anotherCourt, henthe formerCourtmight giveeffectto thepleaby decliningurisdictionndpermittinghe issuesto be foughtout in themoreappropriate ourt."'30Lord Dunedin said:

"... there is here anotherCourt of competent jurisdictionin whichthe casemaybetriedmore uitably orthe interests f all thepartiesandforthe endsof justice."l31127Jackson & Sons v. Lumbermen's Mut. Casualty Co.; Grovey v. Washington Nat.Ins. Co., both supra note 41; Sielcken v. Sorenson (1932) 111 N. J. Eq. 44, 161 Atl. 47;Mexican Nat. R. Co. v. Jackson (1896) 89 Tex. 107, 33 S. W. 857.128Blair, loc. cit. supra note 33.129Supra note 35. See also GnsB, oc. cit. supra note 35; GLOAGNDHENDERSON,oc.cit. supra note 35.130 [19261 Sess. Cas. (H. L.) at 16.1s1Ibid. at 18.


29/44

19471 FORUM NON CONVENIENS 407Lord Sumnersaid:

"Obviouslyhe Court cannotallege its own convenience, r theamountof its ownbusiness, ritsdistaste ortryingactionswhich n-volvetakingevidencenFrench,asa groundorrefusal.... Theob-ject underthe words forumnon conveniens's to find that forumwhich s the moresuitable or the endsof justice,andis preferablebecause ursuitof thelitigationnthatforums more ikelyto securethoseends."'132The English courts have a slightly narrowerconception of thedoctrine.They appearto limit it to cases "inwhichthe Courtshould,in its discretion,exercise its inherentpower to prevent its procedurefrom being abused for the purposeof oppressionand with the resultof workinginjustice".m'3he emphasisis on abuse of the court'spro-cess and apparentlyboth serious injustice to the defendant and animpropermotiveon the part of the plaintiffarenecessaryto call forththe applicationof the doctrine.Thus in Loganv. Bank of Scotland'-4applicationwas made to the court to stay all furtherproceedings nthe action on the groundthat it was vexatious andan abuse of processof the court.A showingwasmadethat a serious burdenwas placedondefendant,and that the only reasonforbringingthe action in Englandwas to coerce a settlementbecause the amountin suit was quite outof proportion o the cost of defending.In Egbert v. Short'35he courtrelied on the "inherentjurisdictionof the Courtto preventan abuseof its process".In In re Norton's Settlement,Williams,L. J., said:'38"Inmy opiniont mustbeprovedo thesatisfaction f theCourt hateitherthe expenseor the difficulties f trialin this countryaresogreatthat injusticewill be done--in this sense,that it willbe verydifficult, rpracticallympossible,orthelitigantwho s applyingorthestayto get justice n thiscountry."

And,Farwell,L.J., said:"Now,abuse uggestsoone'smindanelement fwrong-doingnthepartyattempting o to abuse,andI thinkthat in all the reportedcasesthat elementdoesappear.t isnotnecessaryorus todeterminewhether hemerequestionof inconvenience ouldof itselfbe suffi-cientwithout hatelement."'1r132 Ibid. at 21, 22.133 Kennedy,L.J., in In re Norton'sSettlement, upranote 37, at 485.134Supranote 37.135Supranote37, at 210.136 [1908] 1 Ch. at 479.137Ibid. at 482.


30/44

408 CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW [Vol.aThe tendency in recent American cases applying the doctrine offorum non conveniens has been to hold that both convenience to the

parties and convenience to the court are to be considered."3 This ap-proach is best illustrated by the statement of the United States Su-preme Court in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert:139

"Wisely, it has not been attempted to catalogue the circumstanceswhich will justify or requireeither grant or denial of remedy. Thedoctrine leaves much to the discretionof the court to which plaintiffresorts,and experiencehas not showna judicialtendencyto renounceone'sown jurisdictionso strongas to result in manyabuses."If the combinationand weight of factors requisite to given resultsare difficult o forecast orstate, those to be consideredare not difficultto name. An interest to be considered,and the one likely to be mostpressed, is the private interest of the litigant. Important considera-tions are the relativeease of accessto sourcesof proof; availabilityofcompulsoryprocess for attendanceof unwilling,and the cost of ob-taining attendance of willing,witnesses; possibility of view of prem-ises, if view would beappropriate o the action; and all otherpracticalproblemsthat maketrial of a case easy, expeditiousand inexpensive.There may also be questionsas to the enforceabilityof a judgmentifone is obtained.The court willweighrelativeadvantagesandobstaclesto fair trial. It is often said that the plaintiff may not, by choice of aninconvenientforum, 'vex,' 'harass,'or 'oppress'the defendantby in-flicting upon him expense or trouble not necessary to his own rightto pursuehis remedy. But unless the balance is strongly in favor ofthe defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely bedisturbed."Factors of public interest also have place in applying the doctrine.Administrativedifficulties follow for courts when litigation is piledup in congested centers instead of being handled at its origin. Juryduty is a burden that ought not to be imposedupon the people of acommunity which has no relation to the litigation. In cases whichtouch the affairsof manypersons,there is reasonfor holdingthe trialin their view and reach rather than in remote parts of the countrywherethey can learn of it by reportonly. There is a local interest inhaving localized controversiesdecided at home. There is an appro-priateness, too, in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum thatis at home with the state law that must governthe case, rather thanhaving a court in some other forumuntangle problemsin conflict oflaws, and in law foreignto itself."138 Universal Adjustment Corp. v. Midland Bank; Kantakevich v. D., L. & W. R. R.Co., both supra note 41; Anderson v. D., L. & W. R. R. Co. (1940) 18 N. J. Misc. 153,

11 A. (2d) 607.189Supra note 6, at 508.


31/44

1947] FORUMNON CONVENIENS 409It is difficultto ascertain from these cases what weight, if any,actually is given to the convenienceof the court in applyingthe doc-

trine. In the Gilbertcase, for example,the Courtexaminedthe factsand concludedthat a heavy burdenwould be placedon the defendantby trial in New York and that the plaintiffhad shown no legitimateadvantage accruingto him from the choice of the forum. Then theCourtadded:"Thecourt ikewisecouldwell haveconcludedhat the taskof thetrialcourtwouldbe simplified y trialin Virginia. f trialwasin astatecourt, t couldapply ts own aw to eventsoccurringhere. f infederalcourtby reasonof diversityof citizenship,he courtwouldapplythelawof its ownstatein which t is likelyto be experienced.The courseofadjudicationnNewYork ederal ourtmightbebesetwith conflictof lawsproblems ll avoidedf the case is litigated nVirginiawhere t arose."'14

Does the Court

Documents

Barrett - The Doctrine of