GEORGE V. UNITED FRUIT CO. 21
cited which would seem .to support the theory that there is actually no jurisdiction in such cases. It was decided in New York, for instance, in the -case of Robinson vs. Ocean Steam Navigation Co., 2d L. R. A. 631, as follows:
We therefore have a case where plaintiff is a nonresident, the defendant a foreign corporation, and the cause of action did not arise within this State; and therefore, no court within this State has jurisdiction of the action.
However, there are a number of cases that appear to hold that in transitory actions of this kind, the courts may properly assume jurisdiction and there are also other well-considered cases that hold that even if there be the necessary jurisdiction, the courts will, under certain circumstances, refuse the exercise thereof for, reasons of expediency, public policy, or comity.
Section 1 of the Executive Order of July 28, 1910, provides as follows: No civil action or special proceeding shall be brought or proceeded with in the courts of the Canal Zone, in any case in which both the parties, plaintiff and defendant, are alien nonresidents of the Canal Zone, and the cause of action arose without the territorial limits of the CanalZone Government, and the party proceeded against has no property within such territorial limits, subject to the jurisdiction of the Canal Zone courts.
However, it was said by the Supreme Court of the Canal Zone, in construing this section in the case of the Panama Development & Manufacturing Co. vs. Lam Hing & Co., 2 C. Z. Rep., 300, as follows,:
It will be noted that while the Executive Order provides negatively that no civil action shall he brought in the courts of the Canal Zone in which both parties, plaintiff and defendant, are alien nonresidents of the Canal Zone, and the cause of action is one which arose without the territorial limits of the Canal Zone Government, and the party proceeded against has no property within said territorial limits, that it does not affirmatively provide the converse thereof, viz: that any civil action may be brought in the Canal Zone courts where the parties are alien nonresidents and the cause of action arose without the territorial limits of theCanal Zone, provided the party proceeded against has property within the said territorial limits subject to the jurisdiction of the Canal Zone courts. In other words, it was not intended by this provision to extend to the Canal Zone courts a jurisdiction of local actions which it did not otherwise possess.
And I may add here that it was not intended by this provision of the Executive Order to extend to the Canal Zone courts a jurisdiction in transitory actions where the court would not otherwise have j urisdiction, or where it would be otherwise inadvisable on the grounds of expediency_, comity or public policy.
In the Lam Hing case the Supreme Court said further:
But even if this were a transitory action as distinguished from one purely local, we think the court should be slow to assume jurisdiction thereof upon the broad question of policy.
and the Supreme Court there distinguished from other cases where one of the parties "in each of such other cases had been residents of