Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/311

275 ACTIONS AGAINST THE PROPERTY OF SOVEREIGNS 275 ings against a ship or other property requisitioned for use by our government, these executive and legislative precedents touching the requirements of eflScient administration are entitled to great weight. When a sovereign comes into court as plaintiff, in so far as he seeks relief he is bound by the usual rules governing litigants. He may be required to give security for costs ^^ and he may be met by defenses, set-offs or cross-bills *^ incident to the subject matter of the action. But the waiver of immunity is not held to extend to affirmative relief against the sovereign. The Supreme Court has held that the set-offs permitted by statute to be asserted against the United States do not allow any judgment to be rendered against the government, although it may be judicially determined that the government is indebted to the defendant.^® Foreign sovereigns would probably be accorded the same immunity, for in their aspect as plaintiffs the same principles apply to all sov- ereigns alike. In South African Republic v. Compagnie Franco-Beige ^° the English Court of Appeal held that a counterclaim based on a transaction independent of that sued on could not be asserted against a plaintiff sovereign. On the other hand, a federal district court held in Kingdom of Roumania v. Guaranty Trust Co.,^^ that a sovereign suing to recover a deposit could be interpleaded against his will by one whose claim arose independently of the original deposit. The American decision seems preferable. The courts may well regard themselves as open only to those who impUedly assent to having complete justice done with respect to the property sued for or the defendant proceeded against. As long as no lia- bility beyond the bounds of the litigation is imposed on the sov- ereign, he cannot complain that his prerogative is interfered with. A unique case in this subject is that of Von Hellfeld v. Russian Government,^^ decided in 1910 by the Prussian Court for the De- termination of Jurisdictional Conflicts. Suit was originally brought 13 W. Rep. 1062 (1865). « United States v. Eckford, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 484 (1867). • w [1898] I Ch. 190. " 244 Fed. 195 (1917). ^ Decision reported in 5 Am. Jour, of Int. Law, 490 (1910).
 * '' Rothschild v. Queen of Portugal, 3 Y. & C. 594 (1839).
 * 8 Duke of Brunswick v. King of Hanover, 6 Beav. i (1844) ; United States v. Proileau