Case: ROSSIA INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION (AMERICAN BRANCH), v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Rossia Insurance v. United States
Decision Date: 1923-03-19
Docket Number: No. 245-A
Citation: 58 Ct. Cl. 180
Volume: 58
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: ROSSIA INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION (AMERICAN BRANCH), v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Pages: 180–182

Head Matter:
ROSSIA INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION (AMERICAN BRANCH), v. THE UNITED STATES.
[No. 245-A.
Decided March 19, 1923.]
On defendant's motion to dismiss.
Jurisdiction; section 155, Judicial Code; aUens. — The Court of Claims has no jurisdiction of any claim prosecuted against the United States by a citizen or subject of any foreign government which does not accord to citizens of the United States the right to prosecute claims against such government in its courts.
The Reporter’s statement of the case:
Mr.Fred.K.Dyar^-with whom -was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Robert H. Lovett, for the motion.
Mr. A. R. Serven opposed. Mr. John G. Garter and Serven, Joyce c& Barlow were on the briefs.
The court found the following facts:
I. Plaintiff is a corporation organized under the laws of Russia, with its principal place of business at Petrograd, Russia, temporarily moved to Paris, France, during the disturbed conditions in Russia. It was, prior to the year 1908, and still is, operating under its original charter received from the Russian Government, and has been, and still is, a citizen of the Russian Government. It was, prior to the year 1908, engaged in, and did, during the years 1908 to 1917, inclusive, engage in the general business of making and sell ing fire and marine insurance within the United States, with its principal place of business in America located at Hartford, Conn.
II. The court finds as a matter of fact that at the time this suit was filed a citizen of the United States was not accorded the right to prosecute any.claim he may have had against the Government of Eussia.

Opinion:
Booth, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court.
The record in this case discloses a state of facts of such a nature that the court is compelled to dismiss the same for want of jurisdiction. The case itself is meritorious, but the jurisdictional issue bars relief. The court may not enter into a review of political and social conditions to ascertain what is an apparent, open, notorious, and proven fact, viz, that a citizen of the United States was not at the time of filing this suit accorded the right to prosecute a claim he may have had against Eussia in the courts of that country. The plaintiff itself concedes this fact but seeks to avoid it on the supposed hypothesis that because the Government of the- United States has not recognized the present Government in Eussia we are to presume the continuance of the Government preceding the present régime and the status quo of its judicial department, notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff company itself was compelled to flee in haste to a foreign country in order to preserve its assets and conduct its ordinary business, free from the dangers of a successful revolution. However interesting and inviting the discussion might be, we are of the opinion that in the present instance our jurisdiction depends upon the ascertainment of an existing and easily provable fact. The case having been remanded to afford an opportunity to prove the fact, and the proof being sufficient, nothing is left for the court to do other than to enter an order of dismissal. As before observed, the case itself is manifestly meritorious and but for the lack of jurisdiction would undoubtedly result in substantial relief to the plaintiff company. The contentions advanced to sustain the case in this court might with much more propriety be addressed to Congress, the only tribunal with jurisdiction to entertain them.
Under section 155 of the Judicial Code the court is without jurisdiction of this claim and the petition is dismissed. It is so ordered.