Salimoff & Co. v. Standard Oil case brief, 186 N.E. 679 (1933)

Salimoff & Co. v. Standard Oil
186 N.E. 679 (1933)


Procedural History:
Appeal from dismissal of action for an accounting.

Overview:
-Salimoff (P) claimed that the Soviet gov~rnment  did not have good title to pass when it sold oil property confiscated from Russian nationals. Salimoff (P) was the equitable owner of oil property that had been seized by a nationalization decree and confiscated by the Soviet government in Russia.
-When the Soviet government sold oil extracted from that property to Standard Oil (D), Salimoff (P) sought an accounting, alleging that the confiscatory decrees by the unrecognized Soviet government had no legal effect.
-The complaint was dismissed and Salimoff (P) appealed.

Issue:
-When no right of action is created at the place of the wrong, can recovery in tort be had in another state?

Rule:
-When no right of action is created at the place of the wrong, no recovery in tort can be had in any state.

Analysis:
-Salimoff (P) claimed the Soviet government was nothing more than a band of robbers and had no legitimacy. The court asked the rhetorical question whether Soviet Russia was a band of robbers or a government. Everyone knows it is a government, according to this court .

Outcome:
No. When no right of action is created at the place of the wrong, no recovery in tort can be had in any other state.  The United States government recognizes that the Soviet government has functioned as a de facto government since 1917,  ruling within its borders. The courts cannot refuse to recognize a de facto government merely because the State Department has not recognized the Soviet government as a de jure government. Affirmed.