Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

116

[ocr errors]

I 16

PAGE

PAGE Daimler Co. v. Continental

Goldschmidt (Th.), Ltd., In ve
Tyre and Rubber Co.

124 (Great Britain)

Greenway v. Jones

25, 45, 51, 52, 56, 68, 114, 115, 117,

Grimthorpe's Settlement, Inre 57 118, 120, 122, 126, 127, 130 Griswold v. Waddington

151 Dale Steamship Co. v. Nor

Groom (C.), Ltd. v. Barber 158 thern Steamship Co. 160

H H
Derry v. Duchess of Mazarine 61
De Wahl v. Braune

Hagelberg (W.)Actien-Gesell

schaft, In re Distington Hematite Iron

Halsey and another v. Löwen-
Co. v. Possehl & Co.

feld

50, 55, 69, 105, 150 Du Belloix v. Lord Waterpark

Hamborn, The Duncan,

120 Fox & Co. v.

Hanger v. Abbott
Schrempft & Bonke 156
Harman v. Kingston

42 Harper & Sons v. Keller,

Bryant & Co.
Elders & Fyffes v. Hamburg-
Amerikanische Packet-

Herne Bay Steamboat Co. v.
fahrt

Hutton

81, 94 25, 120 Eliza Ann, The

Hilckes, In re, ex parte 20

Muhesa Rubber PlantaErtel Bieber & Co. v. Rio

tions, Ltd.

25, 52, 120 Tinto Co. 64,65,66,68, 106, 109

Holgate & Co. v. Belgian Esposito v. Bowden

Grain & Produce Co. 158 65, 76, 101, 102, 107

Hoop, The Etherington and Lancashire

32, 43, 65, 71, 100 & Yorkshire Insurance

Horlock v. Beal Co.'s Arbitration

66, 81, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 94, 112

148 Eumaeus, The

Howell v. Coupland 153

79 Hugh Stevenson & Sons, Ltd. F

v. Aktien-Gesellschaft für

Cartonnagen-Industrie Flindt v. Scott

62, 112, 125, 149, 151 Ford & Sons (Oldham), Ltd. v.

Hulton v. Chadwick Henry Leetham & Sons,

95, 97 Ltd.

I Forman, Ex parte

| Ingle v. Mannheim Insurance Freyberger, Ex parte 9, 10 Co.

116, 121 Fried Krupp Actien-Gesellschaft, In ve

62 Fried Krupp Actien-Gesell

Jackson v. Union Marine Inschaft v. Orconera Iron

surance Co. Ore Co.

68

81, 82, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90 Furtado v. Rogers 65, 67, 135 | Janson v. Driefontein Gold

Mines, Ltd. 20, 43, 46, 49, 59,

60, 61, 64, 118, 136, 138 Gamba v. Le Mesurier

135

K
Gaudig (G.) & Blum, In re 152 Keighley, Maxted & Co. v.
Gebruder van Uden v. Burrell 49 Durant

93 Geipel v. Smith 82, 83, 89, 96, III Kellner v. Le Mesurier

135 George v. Powel

Kensington v. Inglis

43 Gist v. Mason

100, 102
Kershaw v. Kelsey

II3

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

116

[ocr errors]

PAGE Netherlands South African

Railway Co. v. Fischer 42, 119 Nickoll v. Ashton .:

79, 81 Nigel Gold Mining Co.v. Hoade 137 Nordman v. Rayner 47, 48, 73 Northern Steel & Hardware Co. v. John Batt & Co. 159

O O'Neill v. Armstrong, Mitchell & Co.

111, 112 Orenstein v. Egyptian Phosphate Co.

115 Orient Co. v. Brekke & Howlid 158

P
Palace Shipping Co. v.
Caine

110, III Panariellos, The 73, 101, 102 Paradine v. Jane

75, 79, 92 Père Adam, The

44 Pharaon (R.) et Fils, In ve 127 Polurrian Steamship Co. v. Young

139 Polzeath, The

120 Porter v. Freudenberg

24, 44, 46, 56 Potts v. Bell

71, 102, 136

148

PAGE Kraus v. Kraus & Orbach 58 Kreglinger v. S. Samuel and Rosenfeld

44, 101 Kreglinger & Co. v. Cohen Krell v. Henry

80, 81

L
Law & Bonar V. British

American Tobacco Co. 159 Leader v. Direction der Dis

conto Gesellschaft Le Bret v. Papillon Leiston Gas Co. v. Leiston

cum-Sizewell U.D.C. Leyland Shipping Co. v. Nor

wich Union Fire Insur

ance Co. Liebmann, Ex parte 14, 15, 53, 55 Liston v. Owners of Steamship Carpathian

112 Lützow, The

M
Manbre Saccharine Co. v.

Corn Products Co.
Manningtry, The

153 Maria v. Hall Markwald, Ex parte Maxwell v. Grunhut 113, 152 Mercedes Daimler Motor Co.

and another v. Maudslay

Motor Co.
Merten's Patent, In re
Metropolitan Water Board v.

Dick, Kerr & Co. 66, 86, 89, 91 Millar (Andrew) & Co. v.

Taylor & Co. Mitsui v. Mumford

140 Moorcock, The

162 Moore v. Evans

141 Moss v. Smith Möwe, The

40, 44 Muller v. Thompson

19 Munro, Brice & Co. v. War

Risks Association Musgrave v. Chung Teeong Toy 17

[ocr errors]

158

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

R

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

R. v. Albany Street Police

Station Superintendent R. v. Arnaud

17 R, v. De Manneville

33 R. v. Depardo

39 R. v. London County Council 126 R. v. Lynch

9, 10 Robinson v. Continental In. surance Co. of Mannheim

36, 41, 116 Robinson v. Davison

79 Robson v. Premier Oil and

Pipe Line Co. 70, 72, 126 Rodriguez v. Speyer Brothers

23, 56, 153 Rombach v. Gent Ross v. Shaw

76 Roura & Forgas v. Townend 140 Russian Bank for Foreign

Trade v. Excess Insurance
Co.

161

147

153

[ocr errors][merged small]

PAGE

50

34, 36

30

104

[ocr errors]

PAGE

Three Spanish Sailors' case 39, 53 St Enoch Shipping Co. v.

Thurn and Taxis (Princess) v..
Phosphate Mining Co. 107

Moffitt 33, 42, 46, 47, 58 St Tudno, The

120 Tingley u. Müller 48, 68, 70, 73, 114 Salomon v. Salomon & Co. 118 Sampan (Owners) v. Fiume

U (Owners)

41, 44 Schaffenius v. Goldberg

Usparicha v. Noble 43, 136 24, 46, 47, 48, 54, 58, 73, 125 Schmitz v. Van der Veen & Co. 113 Scotland v. South African

Vecht v. Taylor Territories, Ltd.

Venbryen v. Wilson Scottish Navigation Co. v.

Villa v. Dimock Souter & Co.

108

Von Hellfeld v. Rechnitzer 35, 42 Seligman v. Eagle Insurance Co. 149 Shepeler v. Durant : 34, 35

W Shipton and Harrison's Arbi

Watford v. Masham tration

97, 160

Watts, Watts & Co. v. Mitsui Smith, Coney & Barrett v.

..& Co.

146 Becker, Gray & Co. 153 Soc. An. Belge des Mines v.

Weber, Ex parte

14, 15, 53 Anglo-Belgian Agency

Weiss & Co. and Crédit

Colonial et Commercial's Society for Propagation of

Arbitration Gospel v. Wheeler

157

Wells v. Williams Sparenburgh v. Bannatyne

31, 33, 38, 47

Williams v. Paine Stahlwerk, etc. Patent, In re

114 Stoomwaart

72 Maatschappij

Willison v. Patteson Sophie H. v. Merchants'

Wilson, In re; ex parte Marum 56 Marine Insurance Co. 148 Wimble v. Rosenberg 158, 159, 160 Sutherland (Mary Duchess

Wolf & Sons v. Carr, Parker of), In re, Bechoff, David

& Co. & Co.v. Bubna and others

Wolff v. Oxholm

49, 54, 57, 59 Wycombe Electric Co. .v. Sylvester's case

23, 31 Chipping Wycombe Cor

poration
T
Tamplin (F. A.) Steamship
Co. v. Anglo-Mexican Pe-

Y.B. Hil. 19 Edw. IV, f. 6 19, 29 troleum Products Co. 82, 86, 87

Y.B. Hil. 32 Hen. VI, f. 23 29 88, 89, 90, 91, 94, 96, 108, 109 Taylor v. Caldwell 78, 79, 80, 81,

Y.B. Pasch. 14 Edw. III (Rolls 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 92, 94

Series, p. 128) Tennants v. Wilson

95

| Y.B. 17 Edw. IV, 2, pl. 2.. 93 Teutonia, The

20, 110 Theodor Schneider & Co. v.

Burgett & Newsam 156 | Zinc Corporation v. Hirsch 65, 67

[The Trading with the Enemy Proclamation (No. 2) of gth September, 1914, is reprinted on pp. 131-4 with the permission of the Controller of His Majesty's Stationery Office.]

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

CHAPTER I

BRITISH NATIONALITY AND ALIEN STATUS

IN TIME OF WAR

Reprinted from Law Quarterly Review, XXXV. 213 (July, 1919).

WAR and the atmosphere of war tend to bring into sharp relief questions of nationality—its rights and obligations—which particularly in an island country do not excite much interest in times of peace. The British policy in the past has been, as we shall see, to make it easy for the alien to become one of ourselves, and, even when he has not chosen to take that step, there have been in recent years before the war so few disabilities attaching to the alien who had no desire to take part in public life as to make him almost indistinguishable from the native citizen. But when the clouds were gathering for the present war, we find both Germany and the British Empire overhauling their nationality laws, and we may be certain that for some years to come this subject will demand more than the customary neglect from British legislators and lawyers. In Germany the awakening interest in nationality found expression in the Delbrück Lawl of July 22, 1913, and in Great Britain in the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914, which, though not a war measure, received the Royal Assent on August 7, 1914, and came into force on January 1, 1915. Of both these laws more hereafter.

It is well at the outset to understand clearly what the expressions 'nationality' and 'domicile' mean. We cannot turn to a more reliable source for our definitions than to Professor Dicey's Conflict of Laws. Nationality can best be defined from the point of view of English municipal law by saying in

1 Printed as a Parliamentary Paper, together with a Memorandum by H.B.M. Embassy at Berlin, Cd. 7277 of 1915.

? Printed now as amended by the Act of 1918. The references are to the amended Act.

Men.

Professor Dicey's words: that 'a British subject means any person who owns permanent allegiance to the Crown' (as distinct from the temporary and local allegiance owed by an alien while, and because, he is within the British dominions); and that'alien' means any person who is not a British subject.' We shall see later, however, that a person may be a British subject by English law, and a subject of some other country by some foreign law.

*The domicile of any person is, in general, the place or country which is in fact his permanent home, but is in some cases the place or country which, whether it be in fact his home or not, is determined to be his home by a rule of law2.' We shall find that mere residence---in the barest sense of the word and denoting little more than presence in a particular spot-has important consequences in determining a person's status, and so we must either call it 'constructive domicile within the second part of Professor Dicey's definition, or add it to nationality and domicile as relevant tests of British, neutral, or enemy character during war.

We shall find it convenient to consider, (1) who are British subjects, and how British nationality may be acquired and lost; (2) who are aliens, and in what respects they differ from British subjects before the law; and (3) the effect of war in dividing aliens into alien enemies and alien friends, neutral and allied, and the change in their status created by the fact of war.

BRITISH NATIONALITY. Who then have British nationality? Who is a British subject ?

The leading common law3 authority is Calvin's case_a perfect mine of curious learning, a medley of the civil and common laws and of biblical quotations and secular history—where

1 2nd ed., p. 164

2 Ibid., p. 82. 8 For an exhaustive discussion of the position at common law, see in Journal of Society of Comparative Legislation, N.S., XXXI. 314. an article by Mr F. B. Edwards.

4 (1608) 7 Rep. I.

« EdellinenJatka »