ln a suit on a negotiable instrument, a problem arises as to just how many places can claim valid jurisdiction. Thus, where the domiciles of the parties to a negotiable instrument are diverse, there are several jurisdictional possibilities. For example, with regard to a negotiable bearer bond it may be said that there is sufficient contact with the parties and/or the property (1) at the place where it was issued, (2) at the present location of the certificate of indebtedness, (3) at the location of the debtor corporation's office or principal place of business, or (4) in the state of incorporation of the debtor corporation. Logically, the location of either the certificate of indebtedness or the debtor himself would seem to be the preferable choices, and the conflict between them has been a source of frequent controversy. It is generally felt that the location of the certificate itself should be allowed to govern, but the purpose for which the decision is being made has occasionally altered a court's view in this respect. The purpose of this discussion is to point to the problems inherent in specifying the situs of the property interest of a negotiable bearer bond, particularly with relation to the subjection of such property interest to the provisions of the Trading With the Enemy Act.
W. H. Bates S.Ed.,
CONFLICT OF LAWS - NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS - SITUS OF BEARER BONDS UNDER THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol50/iss7/6