—Pledge—Clause prohibited—Subsequent purchase by pledgor; v. Pledge, 87.

٨٠ —Prescriptive right.—The right to light and air, acquired by prescription, is restricted to windows which have existed during the period of limitation. A householder, therefore, who has acquired a prescriptive right to light and air for windows on the first floor only, cannot prevent the erection of buildings which would obstruct only windows which he wishes to open on the ground floor. (Trib. App. Cairo, 20 Feb. 1906; No. 28, p. 18.)

—Advocate—Scope of mandate—Alteration of charge—Consent to immediate trial; v. Procedure, Criminal, 103.

٨١ —Patriarchate—Administration of estate.—The heirs of a deceased person entered into an agreement with the Wakil of a Patriarchate whereby the latter undertook, in consideration of his receiving a certain sum, to carry out the administration of the estate. This agreement cannot be deemed a mandate since the Patriarchate acts in the matter as a lawfully constituted authority in questions concerning personal statute, and the Court is, therefore, not empowered under art. 514 C.C., to reduce the amount of the remuneration agreed upon. (App. 23 Feb. 1907; No. 111, p. 82.)

—Collision—Protest—Time limit; v. Collision, 17

—Theft of crops, attempted—Jurisdiction; v. Jurisdiction of Native Tribunals inter se, 61.

٨٢ —Breach of promise, action for—Pecuniary loss a condition precedent.—It follows from the rule that the contract of marriage must be entered into with complete freedom that the parties thereto should, until the marriage has been solemnised, be at liberty to withdraw. A promise of marriage is, consequently, void in civil law, as being contrary to public policy, and no action for damages lies for a breach of such promise. It is only where pecuniary loss has been sustained, in consequence of the breach, that the injured party can claim to be indemnified. (App. 29 May 1906; No. 38, p. 26.)

٨٣ Employers' liability—Injury through servant's own negligence.—A servant who, through negligence in the discharge of his duty, causes an injury to himself, cannot maintain an action for damages against his master under art. 152 C.C. (Sum. Trib. Attarin, 18 July 1906; No. 11, p. 4.)

—Nazir—Means of fulfilling duties—Jurisdiction; v. Jurisdiction of Native Tribunals, Restrictions on, 76.

—Execution of judgment—Administrative authorities—Jurisdiction; v. Jurisdiction of Native Tribunals, Restrictions on, 74.

—Execution of judgment—Irregularity—Claim arising from—Jurisdiction; v. Jurisdiction of Native Tribunals, Restrictions on, 75.

—Judgment for payment of alimony—Administrative execution; v. Execution, 26.

—Proceedings before Cadi—Prescription of public action—Interruption; v. Prescription of public action, 100.

—Mausoleum—Means of fulfilling duties—Jurisdiction; v. Jurisdiction of Native Tribunals, Restrictions on, 76.

—Wakf—Assignment of powers—Subsequent lease by Nazir—Validity; v. Wakf, 127.

—Wakf—Liability for erroneous payment; v. Wakf, 128, 129.

—Omission—Same facts proved by sworn evidence; —v. Procedure, Criminal, 112.

—Modification equivalent to refusal; v. Evidence in civil cases, 24.

—Effect of, on previous appeal; v. Appeal, 6.

—Judgment wrongly designated by default; v. Judgment by default, 55.

—Omission of grounds in declaration; v. Judgment by default, 56.

—Waiver of, not pleaded—Effect on waiver of appeal; v. Appeal, 10.

—Right of way; v. Way, right of, 131.

٨٤ Ownership contested before another Court.—Judgment will not be given in a partition suit during the pendency, before another Court, of an action in which the ownership of the property the subject of the suit is contested. (Sum. Trib. Facous, 4 March 1907; No. 81, p. 60.)

—Lawfully constituted authority—Guardian, legality of appointment—Court of urgent measures—Jurisdiction; v. Jurisdiction of Native Tribunals inter se, 64.

—Lawfully constituted authority—Personal statute—Agreement to administer estate—Mandate; v. Mandate, 81.

٨٥ —"Penalty for police offence"—Reference to art. 12 P.C.—By providing in certain special regulations that persons found guilty of a breach thereof shall suffer the penalties imposed for police offences it is intended to refer to P. C. art. 12, and such regulations cannot, consequently, be deemed without any prescribed penalty within the meaning of P.C. art. 348 3°. (Cir. No. 1 of 6 Feb. 1907; No. 95, p. 68.)

—Judgment by default—Non-execution—Instructions to execute; v. Judgment by default, 57.

٨٦ —Abandonment of possession—Loss of rights of pledgee.—Where the pledgee of an immovable abandons possession thereof and another creditor obtains its sale, the pledgee is deemed to have waived his right to be paid out of the proceeds of such sale in preference to other persons. (Sum. Trib. Damanhour, 12 June 1906; No. 9, p. 3.)

٨٧ —Lex commissoria—Subsequent purchase by pledgor.—Where a contract of pledge contains the clause (lex commissoria) prohibited by art. 543 C.C., and the debtor, believing his creditor to have become owner of the thing pledged, purchases it from him, such sale is void. (App. 1 May 1906; No. 4, p. 2.)

٨٨ —Sale with right to redeem—Restriction on redemption.—Where, in a contract of pledge, made in the form of a sale with right of redemption, the parties have agreed that the redemption shall not take place within a fixed time, the Court may infer, from the terms of the contract, that such agreement was made for the benefit of the creditor, so that the debtor cannot redeem before the lapse of the specified time. (Sum. Trib. Mit-Ghamr, 7 Jan. 1907; No. 35, p. 20.)

—"Penalty prescribed for police offence"—Meaning; v. Penalty, 85.

—Abandonment by pledgee—Loss of rights; v. Pledge, 86.

—Ejection without violence—Possessory action—Conditions; v. Possessory action, 89.

—Order to deliver—Appeal—Protection of possession; v. Appeal, 5.

٨٩ —Conditions.—A party who seeks to recover possession of land must shew that his possession was not vitiated. It follows that, where he has been ejected without violence, he is not entitled to recover if he fail to shew that he possessed both publicly and animo domini. (Trib. App. Cairo, 22 Jan. 1907; No. 42, p. 27.)

—Infant plaintiff—Guardian vendor—Guardian ad litem; v. Infant, 40.

٩٠ —Co-owner—Limit of time.—Art. 462 C.C. is repealed in so far as it is inconsistent with the Preemption Law of 23 March 1901. Thus, where a co-heir sells his share to a third party, the other co-heirs lose their right to redeem such share if they have not begun to enforce it within the time limited by art. 19 of the said Law. (App. 31 March 1906; No. 13, p. 9.)

٩١ —Co-owner—Right independent of other co-owners.—The co-owner of neighbouring land can, without the concurrence of the other co-owners, exercise the right of preemption. (Sum. Trib. Kafr-el-Zayat, 3 June 1907; No. 119, p. 84.)

٩٢ —Indivisible right.—The right of preemption is indivisible and cannot therefore be exercised in respect of a part only of the property sold. (Sum. Trib. Mellawy, 22 Oct. 1907; No. 116, p. 84.)