Wimek Et Ux v. Wimek

• Decision Date: 31 December 1888
• Citation: 82 Va. 890,5 S.E. 536
• Parties: Wimek et ux. v. Wimek et al.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

5 S.E. 536

(82 Va. 890)

Wimek et ux.

v.Wimek et al.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

December 31, 1888.

Partition—Jurisdiction—Lands in Another State.

A court, where all the parties are before it, has no jurisdiction to enter a decree partitioning lands, the major portion of which is situated in another state.

Saheffey & Bumgardner, for appellants. Wm. J. Robertson, for appellees.

Hinton, J. The question in this case is one of importance, but of little intrinsic difficulty. It is this: Has a court of chancery in Virginia, when the defendants have appeared and answered, jurisdiction to partition lands, the major part of which lie within another state? Now, it is a fundamental maxim of international jurisprudence that every state or nation possesses an exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction within its own territory. And "the direct consequence of this rule is, " says a learned author, "that the laws of every state affect and bind directly all property, whether real or personal, within its territory." Story, Confl. Laws, § 18. Another consequence of this maxim is that no state can, by its laws, and no court, which is but a creature of the state, can, by its judgments or decrees, directly bind or affect property beyond the limits of that state, and hence it is axiomatic that no writ of sequestration or execution, or any order, judgment, or decree of a foreign court, can be directly enforced against real estate, situate without the limits of the foreign state. Id. § 20. Such, says Chief Justice Parker, in Blanohard v. Russell, 13 Mass. 4, "is the necessary result of the independence of distinct sovereignties, " and it is absolutely incompatible with the equality and ex-clusiveness of the sovereignty of different states or nations, that any one nation should be at liberty to exercise dominion over property within the territory of another state. But while this is true, it is undoubtedly well settled that incases of fraud, trust, or contract, courts of equity will, whenever jurisdiction over the parties has been acquired, administer full relief without regard to the nature or situation of the property in which the controversy hadits origin, and even where the relief sought consists in a decree for the conveyance which lies beyond the control of the court, provided it can be reached by the exercise of its powers over the person, and the relief asked is of such a nature as the court is capable of administering. Penn v. Lord Baltimore, 2 Lead. Cas. Eq. 1806, et seq., and notes; Farley v. Shippen, Wythe, 254; 2 Story, Eq. Jur. § 1290 et seq.; Dickinson v. Hoomes, 8 Grat. 353; Barger v. Buckland, 28 Grat. 863; Poindexter v. Burwell, (not yet reported.¹) But even as to these cases it must...