jurisdiction exists wherever service can be had on the defendant, irrespective of the locality of the property. Brown v. Greer, 13 Ga. 285.

For a synopsis of the statutory provisions of the various States and Territories respecting the foreclosure of chattel mortgages see Jones on Chattel Mortgages (2d Ed.), chap. xvii.

The mortgagee is not bound to foreclose. He may assert his legal rights under the terms of the instrument, and take the custody of the chattels upon the default. The mortgagor would then be driven to the enforcement of his right to redeem. Freeman v. Freeman, 17 N. J. Eq. 44; Olcott v. Tioga R. Co., 40 Barb. (N. Y.) 179; Tannahill v. Tuttle, 3 Mich. 104; s. c., 61 Am. Dec. 480. But so taking possession would constitute payment of the mortgage debt. Stoddard v. Denison, 38 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 296; Freeman V. Freeman, 17 N. J. Eq. 44.

Even if the property is of greater value than the mortgage debt, the mortgagor has no redress, except to redeem. Olcott v. Tioga R. Co., 40 Barb. (N. Y.) 179; and see Landon 2. Emmons, 97 Mass.

37.

Special grounds may exist for resorting to a judicial foreclosure; as, where there are many creditors whose interests are not accurately defined by the mortgage, -Norton v. Ladd, 22 Conn. 203;-or where there is a necessity for marshalling securities,-High 7. Brown, 46 Iowa, 259; or where there are other liens and encumbrances which may necessitate an equitable distribution, Hammers V. Dole, 61 Ill. 307;-or where, for any cause, there is an impossibility of giving the requisite notice, -Sullivan v. Hadley, 16 Ark. 129. But resort to foreclosure in equity cannot be had in those States where a statutory mode is provided.

No demand by mortgagee is necessary before bringing bill to foreclose. ner v. Anetman, 74 Ind. 24.

Zeh

All persons interested in the mortgaged

chattels should be made parties to the foreclosure proceedings; and, of course, the trustee also where the mortgage is in the form of a deed of trust.

Purchasers of the mortgaged property junior encumbrancers, as well as all others having liens upon or interest in the property, or in the right of redemption of the same, should be made parties so that their respective equities may be adjusted. Chapman v. Hunt, 14 N. J. Eq. 149; Greither v. Alexander, 15 Iowa, 470; Parrott v. Hughes, 10 Iowa, 459; Trittipo v. Edwards, 35 Ind. 467; Bryan v. Robert, 1 Strobh. Eq. (S. Car.) 334.

If the mortgagee attaches the mortgaged chattels,-Buck v. Ingersol, II Metc. (Mass.) 226;-or causes them to be sold on execution,-Kimball v. Marshall, 8 N. H. 291.-he by so doing waives his claim under the mortgage. If, however, he himself becomes the purchaser at the sale, he will be considered as holding the property under the mortgage, and subject to redemption. Dabney v. Green, 4 Hen. & M. (Va.) 101.

The prevailing doctrine is that the mortgagee may sell the entire property upon default of any instalment, without special provision to that effect in the mortgage; the reason being that the mortgagee's right to the property thereupon becomes absolute. Jones on Chattel Mort. (2d Ed.), § 768. Bragelman v. Daue, 69 N. Y. 69; McConnell v. Scott, 67 Ill. 274. Compare Brink v. Freoff, 40

Mich. 610.

Where the entire debt was secured by mortgage of real estate, and $200 of it by chattel mortgage, and the real-estate mortgage was foreclosed, the decree, becoming absolute, operated as an extinguishment of the chattel mortgage debt. Calkins v. Clement, 54 Vt. 635. Where a part only of a debt was due, a chattel mortgage given to secure a portion, not specifying what, will be presumed to have been given to secure that which was due. Calkins v. Clement, 54 Vt. 635.

FOREIGN.-See note I.

1. Foreign Assignments. See CONFLICT OF LAWS.

Foreign Bills. (See BILLS AND NOTES.) -Notes of banks of other localities. They are not money; and a note payable in such is not negotiable. Jones v. Fales, 4 Mass. 245.

Foreign Bonds.-Where a testatrix, having about £7500 in foreign bonds and £500 in Australian bonds, her bequest of "the foreign bonds, amounting to about £8000, purchased with the economies of my own marriage settlement," does not pass the Australian bonds. Hill v. Hill, L. R. 4 Ch. D. 97..

A power under a will to invest "upon any of the stocks or funds of the government of the U. S. of America, or of the government of France or of any foreign government." authorizes an investment in stocks of New York and Ohio and bonds of Georgia. Said Jessel, M. R.: Each of these States is ruled over by a government-an actual government in every sense of the word. Why then should they not be regarded as a foreign government, that is, a government not under the jurisdiction of this country; for that is the meaning of the word 'foreign'? That being so, the word 'foreign' is satisfied, and the word 'government' is also satisfied." Cadette v. Earle, L. R. 5 Ch. D. 710.

Foreign Citizens.-Indians are not "foreign citizens" or subjects within art. 3, sec. 2, of the constitution of the United States. Kanahoo v. Adams, I Dill. (C. C.) 344; Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia, 5 Pet. (U. S.) 1.

Foreign Dominion.-A country which at some time formed part of the dominions of a foreign state or potentate, but which by conquest or cession has become a part of the dominion of the crown of England. An act which prohibits the writ of habeas corpus running into any foreign dominion of the crown, where there is a court established with authority to issue the writ, does not include in that expression the Isle of Man. Ex parte Brown, 5 B. & S. 280.

Foreign Fishing.--Oil is not the product of foreign fishing within the revenue laws if the fish from which it is obtained, wherever caught, are caught by the crew of an American vessel. United States v. Burdett, 2 Sumn. (C. C.) 336.

Foreign Government.-See supra this title. Foreign Bonds.

Foreign Markets. This expression, taken in conjunction with “ 'exportation out of the province," in a colonial act

providing for inspection of exports, applies to the markets of other States. Shuster v. Ash, 11 S. & R. 90.

Foreign Paupers are all those persons coming within the general provisions of the poor laws, as persons standing in need of relief, who are incapable of supplying themselves, who have no parents or other kindred liable for their support, and who have no legal settlement in any city, town, or district in the commonwealth." In an act charging the support of foreign paupers on the State and of prisoners on the county, the term includes those committed to the house of correction as rogues and vagabonds, but not those confined there for other offences. Opinion of the Judges, 1 Metc. (Mass.) 578.

Foreign Plea. A plea to the jurisdiction. Burr, L. Dict. At common law there was a distinction between a plea to the jurisdiction and a foreign plea. The latter was where the action was carried out of the county or place where the venue was laid. i Ch. Pl. 443. Also, a plea in another case between the same parties, or the creditor and a third party bound to pay the debt. Mazyck v. Coil, 3 Rich. (S. Car.) 237.

Foreign Port or Place.In the matters of average, hypothecation, maritime lien, and master's contracts, the term "foreign port" includes all maritime ports other than that where the vessel belongs. The ports of the several States of the Union are foreign as to each other. Lewis v. Williams, 1 Hall (N. Y.); Burk v. The M. P. Rich, 1 Cliff. (C.C.) 308; Negus 2. Simpson, 99 Mass. 388; The Sarah J. Reed, 2 Low. (C. C.) 555: The Lulu, I Abb. (C. C.) 191; s. c. on appeal, 10 Wall. (U. S.) 192.

But in a settlement act, a foreign port or place is a port or place out of the United States. Overseers of Chatham 7. Overseers of Middlefield, 19 Johns. (N. Y.) 56. So also in an act giving a court jurisdiction of certain assaults, etc.. committed "in any foreign port or place." King v. Parks, 19 Johns. (N. Y.) 375. As used in a non-importation act. the phrase was held to mean a place exclusively within the sovereignty of a foreign nation. It is not applicable to a place on the high seas without the jurisdictional limits of the United States. The Boat Eliza, 2 Gall. (C. C.) 4.

A port of the United States in the possession of the public enemy is a foreign port. United States v. Hayward, 2 Gail (C. C.) 501. So far as the revenue laws

I. Of Personal Property, 281.
I Form of Assignment, 281.
II. Transfer of Goods, etc., 282.
1. Rule adopted, 282.

2. Reasons for the Rule, 282.

3. Exceptions Stated in Rule, 283.
a. Goods in Transit, 283.
b. Goods with the Owner, 283.
c. Marriage Transfer, 283.

d. When Both Parties Reside in
same Country, 283.

e. When the Parties Select some other Law by Contract, 283.

4. Ship at Sea, 283.

III. Debts and Choses in Action, 284. IV. Assignments for Benefit of Creditors, 284.

1. Involuntary, 284.

a. Domestic Creditors, 285.
b. Foreign Creditors, 285.
c. English Rule, 286.
2. Voluntary, 286.

a. General Rule, 286.

b. Exceptions as to Real Estate, 287. c. Where Assignment is Opposed to Public Policy, etc., 287.

3. Where Possession has Changed, 288.

Foreign Trade was held to include trade between the Atlantic and Pacific ports of the United States in United States v. Patton, 1 Holmes (C. C.). 421.

Under an act exempting from duty lumber to be used in the construction and equipment of "vessels built in the United States for the foreign trade," the terms "the foreign trade" limit the application of the act to vessels owned by Americans. It does not apply to those built for foreigners. Russel v. United States, 15 Blatchf. (C. C.) 26.

Foreign Vessel.-A vessel owned by residents in or sailing under the flag of a foreign nation. Rapalje & L. L. Dict. Whether a ship is foreign or domestic depends upon the residence of her owners, and not upon the place of her enrolment. The Albany, 4 Dill. (C. C.) 339. But see The Mary Merritt, 2 Biss. (C. C.) 381. The omission to register and enrol an American vessel does not make it foreign. It only deprives it of the privileges of an American. Fox v. The Lodemia, Crabbe (C. C.), 271.

Foreign Voyage.-A voyage to some port or place within the territory of a foreign nation. A whaling voyage is not such. Taber v. United States, I Story (C. C.), 1. Even if the vessel touch at a foreign port, if she do not trade there. The Ocean Spray, 4 Sawy. (C. C.) 105.

On the other hand, a foreign voyage is defined to be a voyage to some place without the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. The Sloop Lark, 1 Gall. (C. C.) 55. And see the Schooner Three Brothers, I Gall. (C. C.) 142.

1. Wharton on Confl. of Laws (Ist Ed.), § 697, 76, 372, 334, 297, 273. 2. Bar. Priv. Inter. Law, § 64. "The doctrine of certain cases in Louisiana, applying the lex rei sita in situr which required tradition in order to transfer of property in movables and rejecting the lex loci contractus, which was the law of the owner's domicile, has been strongly controverted by Story and others, but no authority is cited against it except the cases which establish the lex domicilii as the law regulating succession. On the contrary, the application of the lex rei sita appears to be assumed in all the numerous cases in which conflicts have arisen in regard to the transmission by sale of property in movables." Savigny, 138, n. 1 (Guthrie's Col.); Wharton on Conflict of Laws, § 338; 2 Von Wachter, 388; 4 Phillimore, 396.

"Of late years, however, the current has set very strongly, even in commer

cial countries, towards enforcing the lex situs on the title to chattels." Westlake Private Inter. Law, art. 267.

The same view is maintained by President Wolsey, vol. i., § 71, of his work on International Law.

"It is insisted that great embarrassment will occur if a transfer of movables must be made according to the law of the situs, as it is not expected that persons will know the laws of a foreign country. This difficulty is rather imaginary than real. The transfer is always held good for all general purposes. There would seem to be no great injustice in holding that movables in one State, which probably have been a ground of their owner's obtaining credit there should not be transferred to another State to pay foreign debts, leaving local debts unpaid, unless it be done in accordance with the law of their locality." Peckham, J., in Guillaudet v. Howell, 35 N. Y. 657; s. c., 6 Am. Law Reg. 522, note (N. S.).

These results, however, are intended to apply to voluntary assignments for the benefit of creditors.

1. Story Conflict of Laws (Redfield's Ed.), 383. citing Bell Com. (5th Ed.) 4; Bell Com. (4th Ed.) 65, 67, 68; 3 Burge Com. on Col. and For. pt. 2, chap. 20, 750, 752.

Tilghman, C. J., on one occasion said: "The proposition [that personal property has no locality, but is transferred according to the law of the country in which the owner is domiciled] is true in a general sense, but not to its utmost extent, nor without several exceptions. In one sense personal property has local ity-that is to say, if tangible it has a place in which it is situated, and if invisible (consisting of debts) it may be said to be in the place where the debtor resides; and of these circumstances the more liberal nations have taken advantage by making such property subject to regula

tions which suit their own convenience. 'Every country has a right of regulating the transfer of all personal property within its territory; but where no positive regulation exists the owner transfers at his pleasure.'" Milne v. Moreton, 6 Binn. (Pa.) 353. 361.

The reasoning of Lord Kenyon in a celebrated case, Hunter v. Potts, 4 T. R. 182-192, would certainly lead to the conclusion that an assignment of personal property, whether it were of goods or debts, according to the law of the owner's domicile would pass the title in whatever country it might be, unless there was some prohibitory law in the country. His language is: Every person having property in a foreign country may dispose of it in this, though indeed if there be a law in that country directing a particular mode of conveyance, that ought to be adopted." Story Conflict of Laws (Redfield's Ed.), § 398.

The transfer of personal property by the assignment or sale made in accordance with the laws of the country if the domicile of the owner will be respected by the courts of the country where the property is located, although the mode of transfer may be different from that prescribed by the local law. But this is a mere principle of comity between the courts, which must give way when the statutes of the country where the property is situated or the established policy of its laws prescribe to its courts a different rule. Green v. Van Buskirk, 5 Wall. (U. S.) 307.

2. Wharton Conflict of Laws (1st Ed.). 311. This is the rule laid down by Professor Wharton after an examination and criticism of some length of he contrary view held by some other leading authors. See also CONFLICT OF LAWS, 3 Am. & Eng. Encyc. of Law, 616.

IO.

3. Wharton Conflict of Laws, $$ 305