Ne exeat republica

(redirected from Ne exeat)
Also found in: Dictionary, Wikipedia.
Related to Ne exeat: Ne exeat republica

NE EXEAT REPUBLICA, practice. The name of a writ issued by a court of chancery, directed to the sheriff, reciting that the defendant in the case is indebted to the a complainant, and, that he designs going quickly into parts without the state, to the damage of the complainant, and then commanding him to cause the defendant to give bail in a certain sum that he will not leave the state without leave of the court, and for want of such bail that he the sheriff, do commit the defendant to prison.
     2. This writ is used to prevent debtors from escaping from their creditors. It amounts in ordinary civil cases, to nothing more than process to hold to bail, or to compel a party to give security to abide the decree to be made in his case. 2 Kent, Com. 32 1 Clarke, R. 551,; Beames' Ne Excat; 13 Vin. Ab. 537; 1 Supp to Ves. jr. 33, 352, 467; 4 Ves. 577 5 Ves. 91; Bac. Ab. Prerogative, C; 8 Com. Dig. 232; 1 Bl. Com. 138 Blake's Ch. Pr. Index, h.t.; Madd. Ch. Pr. Index, h.t.; 1 Smith's Ch. Pr. 576; Story's Eq. Index, h.t.
     3. The subject may be considered under the following heads.
     4.-1. Against whom a writ of ne exect may be issued. It may be issued against foreigners subject to the jurisdiction of the court, citizens of the same state, or of another state, when it appears by a positive affidavit that the defendant is about to leave the state, or has threatened to do so, and that the debt would be lost or endangered by his departure. 3 Johns. Ch. R. 75, 412; 7 Johns. Ch. R. 192; 1 Hopk. Ch. R. 499. On the same principle which has been adopted in the courts of law that a defendant could not be held to bail twice for the same cause of action, it has been decided that a writ of ne exeat was not properly issued against a defendant who had been held to bail in an action at law. 8 Ves. jr. 594.
     5.-2. For what claims. This writ can be issued only. for equitable demands. 4 Desaus. R. 108; 1 Johns. Ch. R. 2; 6 Johns. Ch. R. 138; 1 Hopk. Ch. R. 499. It may be allowed in a case to prevent the failure of justice. 2 Johns. Chanc. Rep. 191. When the demand is strictly legal, it cannot be issued, because the court has no jurisdiction. When the court has concurrent jurisdiction with the courts of common law, the writ may, in such case, issue, unless the party has been already arrested at law. 2 Johns. Ch. R. 170. In all cases, when a writ of Be exeat is claimed, the plaintiff's equity must appear on the face of the bill. 3 Johns. Ch. R. 414.
     6.-3. The amount of bail. The amount of bail is assessed by the court itself and a sum is usually directed sufficient to cover the existing debt, and a reasonable amount of future interest, having regard to the probable duration of the suit. 1 Hopk. Ch. R. 501.

References in periodicals archive ?
75) In the dissent's view, the ne exeat right--a "travel
left-behind" parents who have only a ne exeat right may bring
Fourth, and Ninth Circuits had held that ne exeat rights were not rights
contrast, had held that ne exeat rights were rights of custody.
In the past decade, four circuit courts have considered the issue of whether rights of access coupled with a ne exeat provision create rights of custody under the meaning of the Hague Convention by analyzing the language of the treaty and the intent of its drafters.
Croll, the Second Circuit dismissed the respondent's argument that a ne exeat clause enhanced non-custodial parent's rights to determine a child's place of residence, thereby creating rights of custody.
28) The court first analyzed whether the Chilean statute, under which the ne exeat order was granted, included any greater rights for the father, but the court determined that the Chilean order was identical to the statutory ne exeat provision and should be treated the same.
37) The court also ignored the sole purpose of a ne exeat clause; to prevent one parent from removing a child without the consent of either the other parent or the courts.
30) Nonetheless, the court reasoned that this interpretation rested primarily on the ne exeat right which amounts only to a veto power.
Although Second Circuit precedent has set forth that a ne exeat clause cannot convert rights of access into rights of custody where a judicial determination of the respective rights of the parents has been made, the court failed to distinguish this precedent from the facts of the present case.
However, the other parent still has a ne exeat right: the right to determine whether the child will leave the country.
3d at 138-40 (holding ne exeat clause does not create rights of custody within meaning of Hague Convention).