The daily Minnesota pioneer. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1854-1855, 1855-06-08
Important Decision.

In the st. Louis Circuit Court, May Do
Hon. Alexander Hamilton, Judge-His Maj
esty Frederick William ", King of Prussia,
brought his action in said Court against Felix
Coste, administrator of Frederick William
Kupper; claiming 400 thalers, money alleged
to have been embezzled by the deceased from
the post office of the King, which moneys be-
longed to various subjects of the King, and
were after the cmbezzlement, reimbursed by
the King to the parties who were sufferers by
the embezzlement of Kupper.
The petition of the King alleged, that he is
an absolute monarch of the kingdom of Prus-
STA, and as King thereof, is the sole govern
nlent of the country; that he is unrestrained
by any constitution or law, and that his will,
expressed in due FORM is the only law Of that
country, and is the only power known there to
exist as law; that by the law of Prussia, any
money or its equivalent, sent through the Post
Department of Prussia, if lost or stolen, is to
be refunded to the owner by the King; that
this was the law on the 10th of April, le49 ;
that Kupper was at that date the servant and
post officer of the King, at Wermelskirehem,
in the kingdom of Prussia, and received in his
official capacity various sums of money trans
mitted through the mails, to be delivered by
him to the true owners at Wermelskierhem,
and other money deposited with him by per-
sons at that place, to the amount of 7,4OO
thalers; that Kupper absconded with said
money and embezzled it, and fled to st. Louis,
where he died iu the summer of lS49, and Felix
Coste became his administrator on the 3lst of
July, lS49; that the King paid the owners of
the moneys the sums so embezzed by kupper,
and therefore the King claims that he ought
to recover against the defendant said sums Of
money SO paid by the King to the owners of
the money embezzlcd.
The defendant demurrcd to this petition, for
the reason that there is no cause OF action
shown that the payment by the King of the
moneys embezzled was voluntary, and gave
him no right of action; and that lie has no
legal capacity to sue in this court, etc.
The case was argued by G. Gibson, Esq,
for the plaintiff, and by Barton Bates and 3.
A. Hill, Esqs., for the defendant.
The court held that the petition did not
show any cause of action, at common law; that
the payment of money to the owners by the
King, did not, at common law, authorize the
X ing TO recover it of the defendant and that
this court had no jurisdiction over the ques-
tiOns as to the extent of the powers of the
King of Prussia in his sovereign capacity, to
create legal liability against party by the
exercise of his will ina form; as to the power
of King as sovereign, to decree that Kup-
per was liable to pay him as sovereign; that
while the King could sue in this court in his
corporate capacity, waving his sovereignty for
the recovery of any demand recognized by our
laws yet in q case like the present, where the
action is based upon the powers of the King
as a sovereign of a foreign State, he must pros
ecute his claim before thrt tribunal, having
the sole Jurisdiction Of lsieh questions, and a
State court cannot take cognizance of them.
Judgment was rendered for the defendant