v. Jurisdiction of Native Tribunals, 2°.

v. Jurisdiction of Native Tribunals, 1°.

v. Usury.

v. Expert.

١ A mandator must respect the acts performed by his mandatary in excess of his powers if he has ratified such acts even though only tacitly. A party cannot therefore bring an action in repudiation of his legal representative on an appeal brought by the latter, if due notice of the judgment in first instance has been served on the party and he has refrained from attacking any of the acts of his legal representative. (App. 4 December 1902; No. 59, I, p. 54).

٢ v. Bar regulations; Counsel (Absence of accused's—).

v. Representative (Legal—), 1°.

v. Revocation of judgment (Petition for), 1°.

١ A civil judgment which declares a document to be genuine has not the authority of res judicata before the Criminal Courts and does not prevent the Parquet from prosecuting an individual on the charge of having forged the document in question. (Cass. 15 November 1902; No. 25, p. 21).

٢ I. Since there is no text of law in virtue of which Civil Courts are bound by the judgments given by the Criminal Courts, a Civil Court is at liberty to examine the question of the genuineness of a document against which improbation proceedings have been taken in the course of a civil action, although the person alleged to have forged such document has been already acquitted by a Criminal Court on the ground that the prosecution witnesses were not to be believed and that the evidence adduced was in other respects inadequate. II. A person, who has been civil claimant in a criminal prosecution for forgery of a document and has asked for damages, may, nevertheless, as party to improbation proceedings instituted with reference to the same document in the course of a subsequent civil action to which he is a party, demand that the document be declared false. (App. 31 October 1901; No. 15, p. 10).

٣ The exception of res judicata may be raised at any stage of the proceedings and even for the first time on appeal. (Sum. Trib. Guirgueh, 7 March 1903; No. 109, p. 86).

٥ v. Judgment (Service of—).

A Moawen of a Markaz acting as representative of the private interests of the State is not a person charged with a public service within the meaning of Art. 128 P.C. Consequently resistance opposed to such an official who is carrying out in the company of a surveyor the survey of lands forming part of the private domain of the State is not punishable under Art. 128 P.C. (Sum. Trib. Maghagha, 8 February 1903; No. 53, p. 48).

v. Cassation (Grounds), 6°.

The law to apply as to the time for appealing, is that which was in force when the judgment in question was pronounced. (App. 21 November 1901; No. 16, p. 11).

v. Fruits.

v. Seizure of immovable property.

v. Lease, 2°.

١ I. The demand on the part of the defendant for the reduction of any portion of the claim being only a ground of defence pro tanto does not constitute a principal claim and the omission of the Court to give judgment on such claim cannot be regarded as included in the cases provided for by Art. 372 1° C.C.C. Pr. II. In the same way when the claims of the plaintiff are accorded in their integrity the subsidiary claims of the defendant are ipso facto implicitly dismissed. Consequently there is no omission to give judgment on these subsidiary claims. III. Untrue facts alleged by one of the parties cannot constitute the personal fraud mentioned by Art. 372 2° C.C.C. Pr. as a reason for revocation of judgment unless such facts have been the only ground for the judgment attacked. If the Court has relied on other evidence than the statements of the parties to arrive at its decision, revocation of judgment is not admissible. (App. 23 May 1901, No. 14, I, II, III, p. 10).

٢ A petition for revocation shall be brought by means of a writ of summons "in the usual forms," (Art. 375 C.C.C. Pr.) as in the case of a principal and separate action. The summons must therefore be served on pain of nullity (Arts. 6 and 22 C.C.C. Pr.) on the party personally or at his domicile, and not at the domicile elected for the original action; the effect of such election ceases with the final judgment, as is shown the more clearly by the absence from the Native Code of the permission given to the petitioner, by Art. 492 of the French Code of Procedure, to serve his summons at the elected domicile at any time up to six months dating from the final judgment. (App. 4 March 1902; No. 49, p. 46).

١ Neither distant relationship or connection by marriage between purchaser and vendor, nor the smallness of the consideration mentioned in the deed can raise a presumption that a conveyance of immovable property is in fact a gift. (App. 19 November 1901; No. 27, p. 22).

٢ v. Compromise, 1°.

v. Forgery, 1°.

v. Interdiction, 1° I, III.

١ The sale by licitation of an immovable by reason of the impossibility of material partition is not a forced sale or expropriation. Consequently, the higher bid of one tenth is not admissible on the part of an individual who is not a creditor either with an inscribed claim or with an executory title. (Trib. App. Alexandria, 2 April 1903; No. 105, p. 85).

٢ The rules laid down by Art. 627 C.C.C. Pr. relating to the declaration of a higher bid in the case of a voluntary sale by licitation of an immovable, are not to be applied to the licitation of an immovable not susceptible of material partition, in spite of Article 626 C.C.C. Pr. (Trib. Sum. Abdine, 5 May 1902; No. 52, p. 47).

v. Lease, 1°.

v. Cassation (Grounds), 6°.

v. Document (Private—Denial of authenticity of—).

The rules laid down by Arts. 594 to 601 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure being only intended to govern revindications which are incidental to expropriation proceedings, Art. 594 cannot be taken to derogate from the principle laid down by Art. 591 of the same Code, that no person can acquire from or through another person more rights than the latter was possessed of. The true owner of an immovable which has been seized and sold by auction, can, therefore, revindicate the said immovable even subsequently to the adjudication. (Sum. Trib. Esneh, 17 January 1903; No. 44, p. 36).

v. Lease, 2°.

v. Complicity, 1°.

v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment, 10°, 13°); Resistance.

v. Distribution proceedings; Revocation of judgment (Petition for—), 2°.

v. Appeal (Time for—), 2°, 3°, 4°.

v. Judgment (Service of—), 1°; Appeal (Admissibility of—), 1°.

v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of procedure), 3°.

v. Revocation of judgment (Petition for—), 2°.

The owner of a wall bordering on an adjoining estate has the right to make apertures for light and air; but the adjoining owner preserves his right to set up buildings which obstruct these apertures even when the latter have existed for more than fifteen years. Such apertures do not come under Art. 39 C.C. which only applies to servitudes of view. (Sum. Trib. Musky, 1 April 1902; No. 97, p. 77).

v. Appeal (Annulment of proceedings).