•  
  •  
 

Abstract

The historical classification of actions for personal injuries as transitory imposes no limitation upon the prosecution of foreign suits, either by reference to the residence of the parties or the place in which the action arises. Whenever jurisdiction of the person of the defendant is obtained, the power to hear and determine this type of tort action inheres in every court having jurisdiction of the subject matter. An extreme application of the doctrine of the transitory character of personal actions is not infrequently permitted under the statutes as to venue, wherever suits between parties, all of whom are nonresidents of the forum, are brought upon foreign causes of action. The duty of the court to decide the cause before it, in such situations, is counterbalanced by various considerations of practical convenience. Already-crowded dockets are necessarily further burdened by foreign litigation; as the cost of justice is by no means covered by the fees, local taxpayers are as a result subjected to additional and perhaps unnecessary taxes. In addition, the choice of the foreign court by the plaintiff is, it would seem, not infrequently motivated by purposes which do not deserve to be encouraged: namely, to secure procedural advantages offered by the foreign court or a more favorable jury or even to harass the defendant with a view to swelling the value of the claim or securing a better settlement. In such situations, courts have at times shown a tendency to exclude undesirable litigation by nonresidents.

Share

COinS