What acceptor or payer for honor must do. 62012. An acceptor or payer for honor must write a memorandum upon the bill, stating therein for whose honor he accepts or pays, and must, with reasonable diligence, give notice to such party of the fact of such acceptance or payment. Having done so, he is entitled to reimbursement from such party, and from all parties prior to him. Bill accepted for honor must be presented for pay ment. 620i2. A bill of exchange, which has been accepted for honor, must be presented at its maturity to the drawee for payment, and notice of its dishonor by him. must be given to the acceptor for honor in like manner as to an indorser; after which the acceptor for honor must pay the bill. Acceptance for honor does not dispense with notice of dishonor. 620j2. The acceptance of a bill of exchange for honor does not excuse the holder from giving notice of its dishonor by the drawee. Bill not accepted, must be presented for payment. 620k2. If a bill of exchange is by its terms payable at a particular place, and is not accepted on presentment, it must be presented at the same place for payment, when presentment for payment is necessary. Damages allowed. 62012. Damages are allowed as a full compensation for interest, re-exchange, expenses, and all other charges, in favor of a holder for value only, upon a bill of exchange drawn upon any person: 1. In any part of the continent of America or Europe, or the islands in the Atlantic ocean, at the rate of ten per centum thereon; 2. In any other place, at the rate of twenty per cen tum thereon. Damages, how estimated. 620m2. Damages are estimated upon the value of a similar bill at the time of protest, in the place nearest to the place where the bill was negotiated, and where such bills are currently sold. XXX. EFFECT OF JUDGMENTS. XXXI. RULES APPLICABLE TO PARTICULAR SUBJECTS TITLE XXVII. JUDICIAL POWER. CHAPTER XLVIII. In civil cases. CHAPTER XLVIII. JUDICIAL POWER IN CIVIL CASES. ARTICLE 621, 622. Remedial justice. 623. When exercise of jurisdiction may be declined. 624, 625. Extra judicial power. 626. Pursuit of inmate of foreign ship upon the high seas for crimes, prohibited. 627. Limit of judicial power as to absent persons. 628. Party to the record. 629. Limit of judicial power as to property abroad. 630. Voluntary appearance. 631. Effect of judgment by jurisdiction acquired over property. 632. Effect of judgment by jurisdiction acquired over person. 633, 634. Guardianship. 635. Forfeitures. 636. Actions concerning immovable property. 637. Foreign governments and their representatives. 638. Public property of one nation within the territory of another. 639. Power of consul to appear for member of his nation. 640. Judicial power of consuls. Remedial justice. 621. Foreigners are entitled to free access to the tribunals of the nation within whose territorial limits they may be, for the prosecution and defense of their rights, in all cases within the jurisdiction of the nation as defined in articles 308 and 309, and are at liberty to employ advocates and agents of whatever description recognized by the local law, whom they may think proper, and in their judicial recourse may enjoy the same privileges and on the same terms,' and no others,' as members of the nation. But this right is subject to the conditions respecting security for costs imposed upon transient persons by the laws affecting local tribunals.' 1 This Article, which is broader than the existing rule of international law, is founded upon the provisions contained in the following treaties: Treaty between the United States and Venezuela, Swiss Confederation, Two Sicilies, Guatemala, San Salvador, Costa Rica, Peru, Aug. 27, 1860, 12 Id., 1145. 'Argentine Confederation, July 27, 1853, 10 Id., 1008. Hanover, New Granada, June 10, 1846, 9 Id., 865. Dec. 12, 1846, 9 Id., 886. Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Dec. 9, 1847, 9 Id., 918. Treaty between Great Britain and Columbia, Feb. 16, 1866, Accounts & Papers, 1867, vol. 74. Aug. 6, 1863. Id., 1864, vol. 66. Italy, Treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation between France and May 15, 1856, Art. IV., 7 De Clercq, 102. New Granada, San Salvador, By the treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation between France and Honduras, Feb. 22, 1856, Art. IV., (7 De Clercq, 10,) it is declared, that foreigners of either nation are entitled to be present in the other nation, at all judicial and official investigations, examinations of witDesses and decisions in which they are interested; in all cases in which the laws of the nation allow the publicity of such proceedings. By the convention between the United States and France, 1831, Art. IV., (8 U. S. Stat. at L., 432,) foreigners may prosecute claims against the government of a nation before the competent judicial or administrative authorities, on complying with its laws and regulations, the dispositions and benefits of which shall be applied to them in like manner as to members of the nation. Twiss, (1 Law of Nations, 225,) states the rule which obtains in Great Britain, the United States, the Germanic States and Holland, in substance, as follows: A foreigner equally with a citizen may bring a personal action against a foreigner before the tribunals of the country where the defendant may be. He may bring real or possessory actions, before the tribunals of the country where the thing in controversy is. The French rule is more restricted. See the case of Casalini against Isabella, ex-queen of Spain, Feb., 1870. Some exceptions which are now recognized in the application of this rule should be noticed. No suit or proceeding can be maintained in the courts of a neutral nation by the subjects of one belligerent against the subjects of the other for acts growing out of the war. Juando v. Taylor, 2 Paine's U. S. Circ. Ct. Rep., 652. In France, with few exceptions the tribunals do not exercise jurisdiction of controversies between foreigners respecting personal rights and interests, but this is a matter of mere municipal policy and convenience, and does not result from any principle of international law. Story, Confl. of L., § 542. The American courts make similar exceptions in some cases between the master and seamen of foreign vessels, and other controversies between transient foreigners. 1 De La Vega v. Vianna, 1 Barnewall & Adolphus, 284, 288; Liverpool Marine Credit Co. v. Hunter, Law Rep., 3 Chancery App., 486. The right is thus limited by the provisions of several treaties, e. g., Treaty between France and Sardinia, March 24, 176-, 1 Falix, p. 304. The same. 622. The provisions of the last article apply to |