Cape Colony Law Reports; Cases Decided in the Eastern Districts' Court Volume 11 (Paperback)


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1897 edition. Excerpt: ...or having to be performed here; and by virtue of the subject-matter in an action in rem being situated in the colony. " If the defendant is domiciled here the process of attachment is wholly unnecessary, but in the absence of such domicile, the invariable practice in the Court has been to attach the persons or the property of the defendants for the purpose of founding jurisdiction, even where either of the two latter requisites is present." It is needless to multiply authorities on the point, as it is quite clear that, according to the Roman Dutch law authorities, something more is required to give the Court jurisdiction in actions of contract than the fact that the contract was entered into within the territory of the Court, the general rule, as laid down by Huber, being that no Court has jurisdiction unless it is able to enforce its judgment. But, further than that, in the very late case of Sirdar Gwdzal Singh vs. The Rajah of Faredpote (A. C., 1894, p. 670), in which the question of jurisdiction was very fully discussed, the Privy Council distinctly dissented from the proposition of law laid down in Simonin vs. Mediae, that parties by professing to enter into a contract in any country naturally gave to each other the right to have the force and effect of that contract determined by the tribunals of that country. The head-note in that case lays down that in all personal actions the courts of the country in which the defendant resides, not the courts of the country where the cause of action arose, should be resorted to. And in giving judgment, Lord Selborne, referring to an opinion expressed by Blackburn, J., in the case of Schibsby vs. Nestenholz, says: " Their Lordships do not doubt that, if he had heard argument upon the question, whether an...

R525

Or split into 4x interest-free payments of 25% on orders over R50
Learn more

Discovery Miles5250
Free Delivery
Delivery AdviceOut of stock

Toggle WishListAdd to wish list
Review this Item

Product Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1897 edition. Excerpt: ...or having to be performed here; and by virtue of the subject-matter in an action in rem being situated in the colony. " If the defendant is domiciled here the process of attachment is wholly unnecessary, but in the absence of such domicile, the invariable practice in the Court has been to attach the persons or the property of the defendants for the purpose of founding jurisdiction, even where either of the two latter requisites is present." It is needless to multiply authorities on the point, as it is quite clear that, according to the Roman Dutch law authorities, something more is required to give the Court jurisdiction in actions of contract than the fact that the contract was entered into within the territory of the Court, the general rule, as laid down by Huber, being that no Court has jurisdiction unless it is able to enforce its judgment. But, further than that, in the very late case of Sirdar Gwdzal Singh vs. The Rajah of Faredpote (A. C., 1894, p. 670), in which the question of jurisdiction was very fully discussed, the Privy Council distinctly dissented from the proposition of law laid down in Simonin vs. Mediae, that parties by professing to enter into a contract in any country naturally gave to each other the right to have the force and effect of that contract determined by the tribunals of that country. The head-note in that case lays down that in all personal actions the courts of the country in which the defendant resides, not the courts of the country where the cause of action arose, should be resorted to. And in giving judgment, Lord Selborne, referring to an opinion expressed by Blackburn, J., in the case of Schibsby vs. Nestenholz, says: " Their Lordships do not doubt that, if he had heard argument upon the question, whether an...

Customer Reviews

No reviews or ratings yet - be the first to create one!

Product Details

General

Imprint

Rarebooksclub.com

Country of origin

United States

Release date

July 2012

Availability

Supplier out of stock. If you add this item to your wish list we will let you know when it becomes available.

First published

July 2012

Authors

Dimensions

246 x 189 x 3mm (L x W x T)

Format

Paperback - Trade

Pages

50

ISBN-13

978-1-154-21329-4

Barcode

9781154213294

Categories

LSN

1-154-21329-3



Trending On Loot