« PreviousContinue »
Commons in the same year, becoming Commissary-General of the City and Diocese of Canterbury in 1849, Vicar General of the Archbishop in 1852, Chancellor of the Diocese of London in 1858, and Advocate-General of the Admiralty in 1862, receiving the honorary fellowship of University College, Oxford, in 1864. On the passing of “An Act to Amend the Law Relating to Divorce and Matrimonial Causes in England” (20 & 21 Vict., c. 108) in 1858, which struck a heavy blow at the ancient jurisdiction of Doctors' Commons, Twiss became a Queen's Counsel, and ten years later was promoted to the high office of Queen's Advocate General, receiving a few months after the rank of knighthood. He was created a Bencher of his Inn in 1858.
He served on many Royal Commissions and public enquiries, viz. :-In 1852 on the Commission of Enquiry into Maynooth; in 1867 on the Enquiry into the Laws of Neutrality; in 1868 on the Naturalization and Allegiance enquiry; in 1869 on the Law of Marriage, and on the Rubrics; and also he was one of the Commissioners to settle the boundary line between the provinces of New Brunswick and Canada. In 1884 he drew up the Constitution for the Free State of the Congo, and in the following year acted as legal adviser to the British Embassy during the West African Conference at Berlin.
On the 21st of March, 1872, in consequence of domestic trouble, he resigned all his public appointments, and devoted himself exclusively to literary work. He had written, in 1861, “The Law of Nations considered as Independent Political Communities” and “The Law of Nations in Time of Peace and War.” He brought out new Editions of these in 1875 and 1884, translating the work into French with the assistance of M. Alphonse Rivier of the University of Brussels. He wrote a valuable edition of “ The Black Book of the Admiralty," under the direction of the Master of the Rolls in 1874, and contributed articles to the Nautical Magazine, the Revue de Droit International, as well as frequently to this Magazine, in which the last of his articles, viz., “An International Arbitration in the Middle Ages," was published in our November number of last year. He was Vice-President and one of the founders of the Institût de Droit International in 1872, and also one of the promoters of a kindred society, the Association for the Reform and Codification of the Law of Nations.
He was buried at Fulham Cemetery, Middlesex, on January 20th, in the presence of many devoted friends who mourned his loss, among whom were Mrs. Richard Marsden, his niece ; Dr. Tristram, Q.C., Chancellor of the Diocese of London, and Judge of the Consistory Court; Professor Holland, D.C.L., of the University of Oxford, member of the Institút de Droit International ; Mr. Alfred Burton, M.R.C.S. (Eng.); Dr. Stubbs, of the Middle Temple ; and Sir Sherston Baker, Bart. Her Majesty the Queen communicated her regret, and the King of the Belgians his sympathy, to the relatives of the deceased,
.... Sed omnes una manet nox, Et calcanda semel via leti.
V.-CURRENT NOTES ON INTERNATIONAL
LAW. Foreign Judgments “in rom." A very curious question arose in the recent case of Minna Craig Steamship Co. v. Chartered Mercantile Bank of India, London and China, 1897 (1 Q.B.), 55. The plaintiffs, an English Company, owned a ship, the Minna Craig, which sailed from India to a German port. Her master was induced by fraud to sign Bills of Lading for goods which were never in fact put on board. The bills were indorsed for value without notice of the fraud to the Desendant Company, whose registered place of business was in England.
During the ship's voyage a winding-up petition was presented against the Plaintiff Company. On arrival at Hamburg, the defendants, who had in the meantime discovered the fraud, arrested the ship and took proceedings to enforce against her a lien, to which, by German law, non-delivery of the goods entitles the holder of a Bill of Lading. The German Court declared in favour of the lien, and ordered it to be satisfied by sale of the ship. The plaintiffs brought an action in England against the defendants to recover from them the fruits of their foreign judgment, as money had and received to the plaintiffs' use, alleging it to be devisible among the general body of creditors. The Court (Henn Collins, J.) held that the plaintiffs could not recover.
It will be observed that there were really two conflicting principles applicable to the case. Firstly : the rule, not altogether free from doubt, that the “winding-up of a “company impresses the whole of its property with a trust “ for application in the course of the winding-up for the
“ benefit of the persons interested in the winding-up." (See Dicey's “ Conflict of Laws,” rule 68, p. 343 ; Westlake, 3rd edition, p. 154; in re Oriental Inland Steam Co., L.R. 9 Ch. 557). Secondly: the well-established rule that “a valid “ foreign judgment in rem in respect of the title to a “movable gives a valid title to the movable in England to “the extent to which such title is given by or under the “judgment in the country where the judgment is “pronounced.” (See Dicey, rule 102, p. 427-429; and see Castrique v. Imrie, L.R. 4 H.L. 414; Cammell v. Sewell, 5 H. & N. 718, etc.)
As regards the former of these two points, the difficulty suggested by Westlake and referred to by Dicey (p. 343, note 3) did not arise in the present case, as the Plaintiff Company was clearly domiciled in England. Henn Collins, J., based his decision on the fact that the German judgment was one in rem and not merely in personam, and that the case was therefore distinguishable from Hunter v. Potts (4 T.R. 182), Sill v. Worswick (1 H. Bl. 665), and similar cases. The German judgment, it is to be noted, declared that the defendants not only had a lien, but that this lien took priority over other claims, except those for the necessary expenses of prosecuting the voyage and for wages and disbursements.
Local Situation of Property. The Court of Appeal in Smelting Co. of Australia v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue (Times L.R., Vol. 13, p. 84, and W.N. 1896, p. 167): held, that a licence to use a patent in New South Wales was not “property locally situate out “of the United Kingdom" within the meaning of Sect. 59 of the Stamp Act, 1891. The case was decided on the peculiar wording of the Act itself, but is interesting for the dictum of Lopes, L.J., to the effect that “the property now in “ question could not be said to be locally situate anywhere,” and of Rigby, L.J., that “although for the purposes of “ Probate Duty it had been held that all property was “capable of being localised, he did not think that for any “other purposes incorporeal rights could be said to have “any local situation.” (Compare the cases cited by Dicey, “Conflict of Laws,” pp. 318-322.)
In connection with a similar point, it is to be observed that the House of Lords has affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Attorney-General v. Sudeley (1896, 1 Q.B. 354). (See W.N. 1896, p. 162, and Times L.R., Vol. 13, p. 38.) We have already commented on the case in former issues. (See“ Current Notes,” February and May, 1896.)
Other Cases. The cases (referred to in our last issue) of In re Clark and In re Doetch have now been fully reported in L.R. 1896, 2 Q.B. 476 and L.R. 1896, 2 Ch. 836 respectively.
JOHN M. GOVER.
VI.-NOTES ON RECENT CASES (ENGLISH).
Customary Heriots. W H AT has been called an interesting black letter case
V has recently been before the Court of Appeal. The facts of the case shewed that the plaintiff was lord of the manor, and defendants were the executors of George Christy, deceased. Christy was admitted tenant of certain copyhold tenements of the manor, which included two tenements known as Scotts and Langmead. Christy subsequently died seised of the tenements, and, at the time of his death, was not possessed of any beasts then being, or