SUPREME COURT OF THE CANAL ZONE.

in the cases of Blue vs. the Timber Co., and Catiavaggio vs. Habib & Co. do not lay down any principles that would require the assumption of jurisdiction in the present case, because, as staled, one of the parties in each of those cases was domiciled at the Hotel Tivoli and therefore a resident of the Canal Zone although doing business in the Republic of Panama and, moreover, they had property in the Canal Zone subject to the jurisdiction of this court.
But here we have a case where both parties, plaintiff and defendant, are citizens and residents of the Republic of Panama, where the contract wa.s made in Panama to be fully executed therein, and the subject matter thereof situated wholly within the territorial limits of Panama. Aside from the question of the doubtfulness of the ability ot our courts to do perfect justice to all parties under such circumstances, it may be said that as a question of policy, the parties, under such circumstances should be left to litigate their claims in their own courts, in the jurisdiction where the contract was made, where the property was situated and where the contract was intended to be performed.
Such a principle was announced by the Supreme Court of Texas in the case of Mexican Naticnal R ilroad Co., vs. Jackson, 31 L. R. A., 276, which was an action to recover for personal injuries received in Mexico, the action for personal injuries being of course, a purely transitory one. The reason stated by the Supreme Court of Texas for declining to take jurisdiction in that case apply forcibly to the case at bar. There the court said:
There are other sufficient reasons why our courts should not attempt to enforce the Mexican law in cases like this. The reason which influences the courts of one State to permit transitory actions for torts to be maintained therein, when the right accrued in a foreign State or country, is that the defendant, having removed from such other State or country, can not be subjected to the jurisdiction of the courts where the cause of action arose, and, as matter of comity but more especially to promote justice, the courts of the place where he is found will enforce the rights of the injured party against him, because it would be unjust that the wrongdoer should be permitted, by removing from the country where he inflicted the injury, to avoid reparation for the wrong done by him. In this case there has been no removal of the person or property of the defendant. Its railroad remains, as it was at the time of the injury, within the jurisdiction of the courts of Mexico, and it is liable to suit there according to the laws of that country. The reason for permitting the action to be prosecuted in our courts does not obtain in this case. The plaintiff has voluntarily resorted to the jurisdiction of our courts, when his rights could be better adjudicated in Mexico. Thus it becomes a matter of public concern, and a proper subject for our consideration in this connection, iri view of the fact that the railroad company is still subject to that jurisdiction.

308