« PreviousContinue »
Viollet (P.).—Histoire des Institutions politiques et administratives
de la France Watson (G.).—See Bell's Law Dictionary. Westlake (J., Q.C.).--A treatise on Private International Law
457 Wheaton (Henry).—Elements of International Law (ed. A. C. Boyd) 212 Winslow (R.).—The Law of Artistic Copyright
92 Year Books of the reign of Edward the Third (ed. L. 0. Pike) 218
TABLE OF CASES, 1890.
[This table includes only recent cases specially noted or discussed.]
Allbutt v. The General Council of Cooke v. Smith, 465.
Cornish v. Accident Insur. Co., 115.
Derry v. Peek, 112.
Dillon, Re, 351. Atkins v. Shephard, Re Shephard, Dixon, Re, Byram v. Jull, 234. 236.
Duncan v. Dixon, 350. Atkinson v. Bradford Building So- Ebsworth and Tidy's Contract, Re, ciety, 463.
116. Baird v. Wells, 470.
Eddowes v. Argentine Loan Agency, Bank of New South Wales
466. O'Connor, 353.
Eno r. Dunn, 463.
Field v. Field, 234.
Filburn v. People's Palace Co., 471.
Frisby, Re, Allison v. Frisby, 235.
Frost v. Frost, 232. Bridgewater Navigation Co., Re Birch Fry v. Moore, 120. v. Cropper, 123.
Gibbs v. Société Industrielle, 461. Brinkley, v. A.-G., 356.
Giles v. Walker, 465.
Glasier v. Rolls, 112.
Hewett v. Thompson, 117. Cawley & Co., Re, 118.
Hornsey Local Board v. Monarch Clegg v. Hands, 354.
Building Society, 237.
Johnson v. Lindsay, 121.
Kearley v. Thomson, 356.
Knox, Re, 239.
Lamb, Re, 119.
Licensed Victuallers' Association, Re,
Lickorislı, Ex parte, 353.
Lister v. Stubbs, 469.
Shephard, Re, Atkins v. Shephard, London, Tilbury, &c. Ry. Co. Case, 236.
Smart v. Tranter, 354. Lyell v. Kennedy, 123.
Smith v. Smith, 234. Macartney v. Gar bert, 356.
Smith v. Wood, 121, 237. Macdougall v. Knight, 470.
Snowden v. Baynes, 470. Mayor v. Collins, 351.
Soper v. Arnold, 123. Menzies, Ex parte, Re New Eberhardt Spackman, Re, 465.
Starey v. Chilworth Gunpowder Co., Missouri Steamship Co., 122, 230. 239. Mitchell v. Simpson, 121.
Starr-Bowkett Building Society, Re, Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor, 116. 113
Stettin, The, 123. Moorcock, The, 112.
Stonor v. Fowle, 119. Musther, Re, 352.
Stuart v. Diplock, 357. New Eberhardt Co., Re, Ex parte Swaine v. Wilson, 241. Menzies, 232.
Thynne v. Shove, 467. Nouvion v. Freeman, 238.
Tuck v. Southern Counties Deposit Oliver v. Hunting, 355.
Bank, 233 Pain v. Boughtwood, 238.
Turton v. Turton, 117. Parsons, Re, 468.
Tussaud v. Tussaud, 464. Phillips v. Thomas, 465.
Tyars v. Alsop, 119. Priest v. Uppleby, Re Salmon, 123. Vadala v. Lawes, 460. Prytherch, Re, 239.
Valentini v. Canali, 241. Pyle Works, Re, 469.
Vibart v. Coles, 351. Read v. Joannon, 469.
Walker v. Hobbs, 120. Reg. v. Brown, 237.
Warter v. Warter, 460.
Whitaker, Re, 120.
Whitby v. Mitchell, 350.
Whittingham v. Murdy, 118. Rhodes, Re, 352.
Wiedemann v. Walpole, 354.
Woolcott v. Peggie, 241.
232. wood, 469.
No. XXI. January, 1890.
ON PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW AS A BRANCH
OF THE LAW OF ENGLAND.
HOEVER attempts to digest into a systematic form the
rules adopted by English Courts for the determination of the so-called conflict of laws must form a clear view with regard to three topics.
These topics are, first, the nature of the subject generally included under the name of the conflict of laws, or private international law; secondly, the method proper for the treatment of this subject; and thirdly, the general principles which lie at the bottom of the rules or maxims which collectively make up the branch of law under consideration.
My purpose in this article is to deal with the first two of these topics.
A. Nature of the Subject. Most of the cases which occupy an English Court are in every respect of a purely English character; the parties are Englishmen and the cause of action arises wholly in England, as where A, a London tradesman, sues X, a citizen of London, for the price of goods sold and delivered in London. When this is so every act done, or alleged to be done, by either of the parties clearly depends for its legal character on the ordinary rules of English law.
Cases however frequently come before our Courts which contain some foreign element. The parties, one or both of them, may be of foreign nationality, as where an Italian sues a Frenchman for the price of goods sold and delivered at Liverpool. The cause of action, or ground of defence, may depend upon transactions taking place wholly or in part in a foreign country; as where A sues X for an assault at Paris, or on a contract made in France and broken in England; or where X pleads in his defence a discharge under the French bankruptcy law. The transactions, lastly, in question,