« EdellinenJatka »
PAGE Daimler Co. v. Continental
Goldschmidt (Th.), Ltd., In ve
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
schaft, In re Distington Hematite Iron
Halsey and another v. Löwen-
50, 55, 69, 105, 150 Du Belloix v. Lord Waterpark
Hamborn, The Duncan,
120 Fox & Co. v.
Hanger v. Abbott
42 Harper & Sons v. Keller,
Bryant & Co.
Herne Bay Steamboat Co. v.
81, 94 25, 120 Eliza Ann, The
Hilckes, In re, ex parte 20
Muhesa Rubber PlantaErtel Bieber & Co. v. Rio
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.
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
93 Geipel v. Smith 82, 83, 89, 96, III Kellner v. Le Mesurier
135 George v. Powel
Kensington v. Inglis
43 Gist v. Mason
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
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
PAGE Kraus v. Kraus & Orbach 58 Kreglinger v. S. Samuel and Rosenfeld
44, 101 Kreglinger & Co. v. Cohen Krell v. Henry
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
Corn Products Co.
153 Maria v. Hall Markwald, Ex parte Maxwell v. Grunhut 113, 152 Mercedes Daimler Motor Co.
and another v. Maudslay
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
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
Three Spanish Sailors' case 39, 53 St Enoch Shipping Co. v.
Thurn and Taxis (Princess) v..
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
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.
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
Watts, Watts & Co. v. Mitsui Smith, Coney & Barrett v.
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
Wells v. Williams Sparenburgh v. Bannatyne
31, 33, 38, 47
Williams v. Paine Stahlwerk, etc. Patent, In re
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
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
| 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.]
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.
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.