Page images
PDF
EPUB

Brazil, the United States and France, as well as by Great Britain and Germany, may prove successful.

was

Extradition-Sufficient Evidence. An important principle regarding Extradition affirmed by the Divisional Court on an application for a Habeas Corpus in the case of In re Bellencontre, L.R., 1891, 2 Q.B. 122. The extradition demand specified fifteen charges, four only of which disclosed any crime by English Law. The Court held this was sufficient to justify extradition, provided that as regards the four charges mentioned there was “such evidence as would warrant the magistrate in committing the prisoner for trial in an English Court of Justice, if what he did had been done in this country" (Cave, J., at p. 139).

Private International Law.

Foreign Bankruptcies. The Court of Appeal has affirmed the decision of Day, J., in the case of Levasseur and Another v. Mason and Barry (L.R., 1891, 2 Q.B. 73) referred to in our February issue (p. 168). The remarks of Lord Esher, M.R., at p. 79, upon the general effect of a foreign Bankruptcy, are particularly useful.

Foreign Business-Income Tax. In the recent case of The London Bank of Mexico and South America v. Apthorpe (60 L.J. Q.B.D. 196), Charles, J., followed, but distinguished to some extent, the decision of the House of Lords in Colquhoun v. Brooks, L.R. 14 App. Cas. 493.

Service of Writs against Foreign Firms, etc. There is, as usual, quite a large number of cases on points connected with the procedure in actions by and against foreign firms.

The Court of Appeal, in the case of The Indigo Co. v. Ogilvy, L.R., 1891, 2 Ch. 31, explained its decision in Russell v. Cambefort, 23 Q.B.D. 526, more fully than it did in the less recent case of Western National Bank of New York v. Perez, Triana & Co. (L.R., 1891, I Q.B. 304, and see our February issue, p. 166). It would seem now to be clearly established that in an action against a firm, of which the constituent partners, or any of them, are foreign subjects, Ord. ix., r. 16, R.S.C., does not apply so as to make service on the firm good against individual foreign partners, whether the firm as such is properly domiciled or established in this country or not. The proper method is to obtain leave to serve out of the Jurisdiction under Ord. xi. :“You cannot sue a firm, some members of which are abroad, at all events without leave; if you can sue them at all in the firm's name, which seems doubtful, you must at all events obtain leave" (Esher, M.R., at p. 39). In the still later case of Heinemann & Co. v. Hale & Co., L.R., 1891, 2 Q.B. 83, the Court of Appeal followed its earlier decision, and elucidated the further point that a writ served here on one partner in the name of the firm was irregular, not only as against foreign partners, but also as against the English partner. The decision of Cave, J., in Lysaght v. Clark & Co., L.R., 1891, 1 Q.B. 552, would thus seem to be overruled.

In Dobson v. Festi, Rasini & Co., L.R., 1891, 2 Q.B. 92, decided a few days after the last-mentioned case, the Court of Appeal directly held that Ord. ix., r. 6, did not apply to a foreign firm, so as to make a service (even with leave) on one foreign partner binding on other foreign partners. In view of these important decisions, it would now seem pretty clear that in actions against firms, English or foreign,

of which any partners are out of the jurisdiction, the proper and only safe way is to serve the writ upon each partner individually, with or without leave, according to whether he is in or out of the jurisdiction. One other recent case, on somewhat the same subject, is interesting, viz., Wilding v. Bean, L.R., 1891, 1 Q.B. 100, in which the Court of Appeal refused to allow substituted service on a person out of the jurisdiction in default of proof of intention to evade service.

J. M. GOVER.

Quarterly Notes.
The Position of Executors of Landlords under the

Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883. There seems to be a curious difference between the positions of Executor of a Landlord and Executor of a Tenant under the Agricultural Holdings Act. A County Court Judge lately held that the expression “landlord” under the Act did not include the Executors of such landlord, though by Section 61 the expression “tenant" includes the Executors of such tenant. The difficulty would seem to have arisen from the fact that the Executors, in the case in question, were not persons for the time being entitled to receive the rents and profits of the holding, inasmuch as the holding had passed to a remainderman, though they, as Executors of the deceased Landlord, had paid the outgoing tenant the balance due to him under his claim to compensation for improvements. On appeal from the Judge of the Wells County Court, the Judges of the Divisional Court differed, Cave, J., maintaining the decision of the County Court Judge, while Williams, J., looking to the intention of the Act, thought the Executors of the Landlord entitled to the order which they claimed, to

make the amount of compensation paid by them a charge upon the holding under Sec. 29 of the Act.

We learn from the Agricultural Economist, for July, 1891, in which the facts of the case are set out, that leave has been given to appeal, and it will be interesting to see what view the Court of Appeal may take of a point which is clearly one of importance, and as clearly not to be settled off-hand. The intention of the Act, we should submit, was,

Mr. Justice Williams thought, in favour of the contention of the Landlord's Executors.

as

Law at the International Congress of Orientalists. We think it right to take this opportunity of noting that the forthcoming Statutory Ninth Congress of Orientalists, which is to meet in London ist-Ioth September, will, for the first time in the history of that distinguished series of International meetings, have a Section devoted to Comparative Religion, Philosophy and Law. In a Congress of Orientalists, such a combination of subjects, which might seem singular to the Western mind, is perfectly natural. It is practically impossible, indeed, to separate the provinces of the three sub-divisions of this section when dealing with Hindu and Mohammedan Law, or with Archaic Law generally. In a body which, till very lately, had for the President of its Organising and Reception Committees so eminent a Jurist as Sir Patrick Colquhoun, himself the well-known author of a Summary of the Roman Civil Law, with illustrations from the Mosaic, Mohammedan and other Foreign Systems, the institution of a Sectional Division devoted to Comparative Law was at once natural and fitting. And it is no less natural and fitting now that the Lord High Chancellor has accepted the position left vacant by the sudden and lamented death of its first occupant. We trust that the zeal of Mr. W. Fooks in the Secretarial duties of this Section will be adequately supported by the Legal Profession, both branches of which

have shewn their interest in the work by the permission accorded for the use of their Halls and Rooms both by the Hon. Society of the Inner Temple and the Incorporated Law Society

Revietos. Commoners of Winchester College, 1836-1890. By CLIFFORD W. Holgate, M.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law, Secretary to the Bishop of Salisbury. Salisbury: Brown & Co. London: Simpkin & Marshall. 1891.

In presenting the World of Letters with the book now before us, the Legal Secretary to the Bishop of Salisbury has done good service to the Biographer of Legal as well as of Ecclesiastical and Civil and Military Celebrities. In his pages, moreover, there is a living interest aroused, as we are reminded alike of the great men of a past generation--if one may not go so far as to say of old—and of names of mark in the present day, in the persons of a Talfourd, of the Oxford Circuit, son of Sir Thomas Noon Talfourd, of more than one Chitty, and, among Judges, of Sir Henry Lopes and Sir Ford North, while authors and editors are represented, amongst others, by an Oldham, a Cotton, a Churchill; and the Local Government Board by a former President, the present Lord Basing, himself a member of the Inner Temple. The other branch of the Legal Profession is also largely represented, and, as far as the present volume goes, it may be said to outshine the Bar by producing at least one Wykehamist, who after being a solicitor became a monk. Some of the entries of avocations adopted by old Wykehamists are decidedly curious. We find among them lessees of theatres, coffee, tea, and orange planters, secretaries of American and Mexican land, mining, and other companies, and even of an American Tattersall's, while some are described as Brewers, and some as Bleachers, and others, again, soar almost beyond our ken as Wharfingers of the future. There is something in Mr. Holgate's volume which, as has been seen, may serve to amuse us; but there is also a great deal which makes it a valuable addition to our books of reference.

Pressure obliges us to hold over matter in type.

« PreviousContinue »