Some Observations on the Current Status of the Tate Letter

Abstract

Opportunity to drive a significant salient, spearheaded by a specific implementation of the Tate Letter into the stubbornly resisting domain of sovereign immunity, was presented recently to both the State Department and the New York Supreme Court in Weilamann and McCloskey (Sheriff of City of New York) v. The Chase Manhattan Bank. Bank accounts of the State Bank and the Bank for Foreign Trade of the U.S.S.R., maintained in the Chase Manhattan Bank, had been attached by the New York City Sheriff in an action by Mrs. Weilamann, owner of Soviet state bonds in default. The party defendant, the Soviet Union, though served with process, did not appear in the main action, or directly enter a plea of immunity. In a further action in aid of the warrant of attachment, for a judgment directing the Chase Manhattan to turn over the moneys in these accounts to the Sheriff, pursuant to the warrant (the bank having refused to turn over the moneys to the Sheriff on the ground that it was not indebted to the U.S.S.R., but did owe balances to the two Soviet banks), the complaint was dismissed on the ground that the State Department's letter of interest suggesting immunity of the U.S.S.R. from attachment must be honored.