blockade. It does not appear that foreign vessels have been seriously interfered with. A meeting of the Diplomatic representatives of foreign States is reported to have declined to recognise the validity of the blockade.* We are inclined to agree with this opinion in view of the facts at present known.

The Baird Case, Newfoundland Fisheries.

In connection with the Newfoundland Fisheries dispute, it is worthy of note that the Supreme Court of Newfoundland has reserved judgment in the important action brought by Mr. Baird against Sir Baldwin Walker, arising out of the Lobster Fisheries agitation.

As is usually the case, the question of the issue of Writs out of the Jurisdiction has been the subject of several rather interesting decisions during the last three months. In Trübner v. Trübner & Christiani, 59 L.J. P.D. 56, Butt, J., in the case of a co-respondent who was cohabiting with the respondent at Geneva, allowed a citation to be served upon the former by registered letter, on the ground that by Genevese Law the co-respondent, being an Austrian subject, would have a right of action against a person serving him personally at Geneva. In a more recent case, that of Bell & Co. v. Antwerp, London & Brazil, Lim., 1891, I Q.B. 103, leave to serve notice out of the jurisdiction was refused on the ground that the case did not sufficiently come within the scope of Ord. xi., r. 1 (e). The case is noteworthy for the interpretation by the Court of Appeal of the words, "any contract wherever made which, according to the terms thereof, ought to be performed. within the jurisdiction." Here it was held that the payment

*Times, February 9th and 10th, 1891,

of moneys due by charterers on a contract of indemnity for lighterage, was not expressly, or by implication, required to be made within the jurisdiction. Cf. Robey v. Snaefell Mining Co., 20 Q.B.D. 152.

The Court of Appeal (Esher, M.R., dissenting), decided a very important point in The Western National Bank of the City of New York v. Perez, Triana & Co., W.R., 1890, p. 227, and (more fully) Times L.R., 1890, p. 177. The Court regarded Pollexfen & Co. v. Sibson & Co. (16 Q.B.D. 792), as completely overruled by Russell v. Cambefort, 23 Q.B.D. 526, and refused to follow the decision of Chitty, J., in Shepherd v. Hirsch, 45 Ch.D. 231 (and cf. Law Magazine and Review, ante, p. 78), and decided that when a partnership is properly domiciled abroad so as to be a foreign partnership, service upon one partner here, of a writ against the firm as such, is not a valid service. If the writ had been against the partners as individuals, the service would have been good as against the particular one served, and leave to serve out of the jurisdiction would have been required as regards the others.

The case of Wilding v. Bean, 1891, Q.B. 1, p. 100, is valuable upon the question of substituted service. The Divisional Court, in the case of Mayer v. Claretie, Times L.R. VII., p. 40, unfortunately did not deem it necessary to decide the highly interesting point as to whether the Comédie Française was sufficiently identified with the French Government to be outside the jurisdiction of our Courts.

Assignment of Personal Property.

The facts in the recent case of In re Queensland Mercantile and Agency Co.; ex parte Australasian Investment Co., 1891, W.R., p. 8, and Times L.R. VII., 194, were rather complicated. The real point at issue, however, was as to the title to certain unpaid calls due by shareholders in

Scotland to the Queensland Co. These shares had been (a): assigned in Queensland by way of charge to the Union. Bank of Australia, without notice to the shareholders, such notice not being required by the Law of Queensland, the lex domicilii of the Company; and (b): subsequently "arrested" in Scotland by certain Scotch creditors of the company, and notice given in such a way as to create a valid first-charge by Scotch Law. North, J., in a very lucid judgment, decided that though the original assignment was good by the lex domicilii of the parties, yet, as regards these particular shares the subsequent assignment had priority over the first, by the lex loci (that of Scotland), and the claim of the Scotch creditors therefore prevailed.

The decision seems to be quite in harmony with the modern tendency to make the lex loci govern the question of the disposition of movables except in cases of succession on death, bankruptcy, and general assignments. (See especially the old cases of Cammell v. Sewell, 29 L.J. Ex. 300, Inglis v. Usherwood, 1 East. 815, etc., and the more recent cases on choses in action, Williams v. Colonial Bank, 38 Ch. D. 388, and Picker v. London and County Bank, 18 Q.B.D. 510.) The learned Judge's observation upon the limited application to such cases of the doctrine, mobilia sequuntur personam, is worth quoting, though expressed rather negatively than positively. "A transfer of movable property duly carried out according to the law of the place where the property is situated is not rendered ineffectual by shewing that such transfer was carried out not in accordance with what would be required by the law of the country where the owner is domiciled."

Superstitious Bequest by English Will to Foreigners. North, J., decided in the case of In re Elliott, W.N., 1891, p. 9, that a bequest by a domiciled English testator

to persons domiciled in Australia, of money "to be spent in masses for the soul of (testator's) late wife," was bad as being void by English law (the lex domicilii), though good by the law of Victoria.

This is perfectly consistent with the recognised law on the subject. See In re Trufort, 36 Ch. D. 601, In re Andros, 24 Ch. D.

Domicile and Residence.

The misuse of the word "Domicile" in the sense of mere "residence," was aptly illustrated in a case before the Privy Council recently reported, McMullen v. Wadsworth, 59 L.J. P.C. 7. The Civil Code of Lower Canada requires marriages to be solemnised at the place of domicile of one of the parties, such domicile to be established by a residence of six months in the same place. It further provides that marriage shall, in the absence of special provisions, produce community of goods, but subject to the rule that succession to movable property is governed by the lex domicilii. The Privy Council held that in the former case, domicile meant "residence" merely; in the latter, Domicile in the true International Law sense. Hence a "domicile" in Lower Canada, sufficient to validate the marriage as regards locality, did not necessarily oust the domicile proper so as to produce community of goods.

Effect of Foreign Bankruptcy.

The decision in Levasseur and another v. Mason and Barry 63 L.T. 700, affords a curious illustration of the well recognized principle that a foreign bankruptcy or liquidation, in the domicile of the debtor, carries all the debtor's property (movables at any rate) wherever situate. The case was one of many arising out of the recent failure of the Société des Métaux. The actual point at issue was

whether the appointment, at the suit of a creditor in England, of a receiver to receive certain monies due to the Société, did not operate to create a transfer of ownership in such monies so as to prevent the subsequent liquidators of the Société claiming them. Day, J., decided this question in the affirmative, on the ground that a receivership order is "if not an execution in terms-in the nature of an execution."

The learned Judge's dicta on the general effect of a foreign bankruptcy are very valuable and clear, especially on the point that "upon a Bankruptcy (in the forum domicilii) a Trustee, or Liquidator, or Syndic becomes entitled to have all the property, in whatever country it may be situated, which belonged at the time of his Bankruptcy to the debtor." In the present case, however, "all substantial interest in the property" in question had passed from the Société to the judgment creditors, Messrs. Mason and Barry.

JOHN M. GOVER.

Quarterly Notes.

"Incorporated" Law Reporting.

The Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales recently prepared a pleasant surprise for their subscribers. We will give it in their own words: "The Council have determined to wind up the current series of the Law Reports at the end of the present year, 1890, with a General Digest, and to commence a new series of the Law Reports with the year 1891."

Although the Profession, which witnesses with patience the continued appearance of the Weekly Notes, has probably