Content deleted Content added
→Historical origin: some history. all from that same ref |
→Historical origin: to please the americans |
||
Line 16:
Scholars and jurists agree that the concept is of a Scottish origin.<ref>http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/decisions/Publishedopinions/96-01284.HTM</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.judicium.it/news/pistis01.html#_edn1 |title=Forum non conveniens |website=www.judicium.it |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20021119182213/http://www.judicium.it/news/pistis01.html |archive-date=2002-11-19}} </ref><ref>http://works.bepress.com/context/graydon_staring/article/1008/type/native/viewcontent/</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://supreme.justia.com/us/454/235/case.html|title = Piper Aircraft Co. V. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981)}}</ref> Some writers see the doctrine of FNC as having developed from an earlier doctrine of ''forum non competens'' ("non-competent forum"). Many early Scottish cases invoking FNC were under [[admiralty law]]. FNC thus may ultimately have a [[civilian law|civil law]] origin, as has been asserted by several writers, since admiralty law is based in civil law concepts.{{Citation needed|date=March 2022}} However, there is no equivalent in the [[Napoleonic Code|French Civil Code]] or [[Roman law]].<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last=C. M. Jr |first= |date=1948 |title=The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens |journal=[[Virginia Law Review]] |volume=34 |pages=811-822}}</ref>
In [[Scotland]], the concept was developed in the 18th century and was later incorporated into [[English law|English common law]]. It was first adopted in Scotland in 1610, the case being ''Vernor v Elvies'', as an extension of ''forum non competens''; parties were tried in Scotland but not resident argued a Scottish trial would be inconvenient. It was expanded and applied in the 1860s (in ''Clements v Macauley'' [1866] 4 S 224 and ''Longworth v Hope'' [1865] 3 S 1049), which led to its incorporation into English law. The pleading was used in situations where the competence of the court was unchallenged (unlike ''
The doctrine had been applied in several jurisdictions under varying names; in 1793 ''Robertson v Kerr'', a Massachusetts case refused to apply jurisdiction in a case involving a foreign transaction between non-residents.<ref name=":0" />
===United Kingdom===
| |||