—Alien plaintiff—Jurisdiction of Native Tribunals by agreement; v. Jurisdiction of Native Tribunals, Restrictions on, 69.

—Promise of marriage; v. Marriage, 82.

—Appointment — Case pending — Jurisdiction; v. Jurisdiction of Native Tribunals inter se, 63.

—Appointment—Wakf—Jurisdiction; v. Jurisdiction of Native Tribunals, Restrictions on, 77.

١١٦ —Appointment of plaintiff—Ownership of lands contested—Guarantee required.—The Court will not appoint a plaintiff receiver to take possession of and manage land, the ownership of which is contested, unless good cause be shewn, and subject to his establishing that he is in a position to make good any loss which may result from his appointment. (App. 3 Feb. 1907; No. 88, p. 66.)

—Alias—Mention in judgment; v. Judgment, 48.

— Proof of proceedings; v. Procedure, criminal, 109.

—Sale with right to redeem—Restriction on redemption; v. Pledge, 88.

—Wakf—Prescription of action; v. Wakf, 130.

١١٧ —Expres plea.—Res judicata must be specially pleaded; the Court cannot, in a civil cause, raise the point of its own motion. (Trib. App. Tanta, 27 Nov. 1906; No. 6, p. 2.)

١١٨ —Identity of grounds of action.—Action for a declaration of nullity of a document on the ground that it constitutes a gift not made by official instrument. Defence: res judicata, because judgment had been given against the plaintiff, in a previous action, wherein he had made the same claim on the ground that the document in question evidenced a sale made in the vendor's last illness. Held, that the defence was bad, since the grounds of the claim were not the same in the two actions. (Trib. Alexandria, 31 Dec. 1906; No. 57, I, p. 37.)

١١٩ —Interpretative provisions.—The rule whereby the law is said not to be retrospective does not apply to provisions merely determining the true construction of a law which is already in force. (App. 19 April 1906; No. 3, p. 2.)

— Execution on immovables — Revindication — Appeal—Time limit; v. Appeal, 4.

١٢٠ —Owner's right of action—Effect of adjudication in execution proceedings.—The provision of art. 594 C.C.C.Pr. to the effect that a claim by way of revindication may be brought up to adjudication in expropriation proceedings, is intended merely to facilitate the recovery of land wrongfully comprised in such proceedings, and does not, consequently, deprive the owner of his right to revindicate the land by an action brought after the adjudication but before the lapse of the period of limitation. (Sum. Trib. Zagaziq, 28 Jan. 1907; No. 70, p. 49.)

—Contradictory grounds: v. Judgment, Revocation of, 58.

—Personal deceit; v. Judgment, Revocation of, 59.

—Cotton-wood—Non-removal; v. Lease, 78.

—Gift—Express release from payment; v. Gift, 33.

—Infant's property—Unauthorized sale by guardian—Right of holder under void lease; v. Infant, 38.

—Infant vendor—Purchaser's title — Acquisitive prescription; v. Prescription, acquisitive, 97.

—Pledge—Abandonment of possession by pledgee—Presumed waiver of rights; v. Pledge, 86.

—Preemption; v. Preemption, 90-95.

—Property of convicted person—Powers of administrator; v. Administrator, 1.

—Subject-matter of action—Sale before final judgment; v. Preemption, 95.

١٢١ —Execution on immovables—Abatement of price—Conditions of sale.—Since contracts have the force of law between the parties, the purchaser by adjudication of expropriated land cannot maintain an action for abatement of the purchase money, on the ground that the quantity of such land falls short of the represented quantity, if it were one of the conditions of sale that the land should be disposed of as it stood and that the purchaser should not be entitled to any reduction for deficiency. The purchaser cannot be heard to say that he had no notice of this condition if the requirements of the law with regard to publicity have been satisfied. (Sum. Trib. Mellawi, 12 Feb. 1906; No. 69, p. 49.)

١٢٢ —Vendor's warranty—Personal liability.—The vendor of an immovable sued for breach of warranty cannot escape liability by joining his own vendor in the action, because, although the purchaser has an option of directly suing a former vendor, he cannot be compelled to do so. (Sum. Trib. Kafr-el-Zayat, 29 April 1907; No. 93, p. 68.)

—Pledge in form of—Restriction on redemption.—v. Pledge, 88.

—Irregular proceedings—Government purchaser—Title; v. Prescription, acquisitive, 96.

—Land tax, non-payment of—Executive act—Ownership of land—Jurisdiction; v. Jurisdiction of Native Tribunals, Restrictions on, 72.

١٢٣ —Execution, notice of—Service.—By arts 10, 11, Decree of 25 March 1880 it is provided that a monition of execution and procès-verbal of execution shall be served on the owner known to the administrative authorities, as represented by the person actually in possession of the land. If he be absent, service may be effected under art. 6, on any person who accepts service in his behalf. It is, consequently, not sufficient to serve on the omda unless it is shewn that service could not be otherwise effected. (Trib. App. Zagazig, 14 Nov. 1906; No. 61, II, p. 45.)

—Light and air—Prescriptive right—Limits; v. Light and air, 80.

—Right of way—Rights of co-owners after partition; v. Way, Right of, 131.

—Right of way—Landlocked property—Way of necessity—Regulation by Court; v. Way, Right of, 132.

—View—Door, no infringement; v. View, 126.

—Written contract—Proof of simulation; v. Evidence in civil cases, 25.

—Alien—Jurisdiction; v. Jurisdiction of Native Tribunals, Restrictions on, 67.

—Judgment by default—Execution against surety—Time limit; v. Judgment by Default, 53.

—Crops under 25 P.T.—Attempt—Markaz Tribunal; v. Jurisdiction of Native Tribunals inter se, 61.

١٢٤ —Co-owner, taking by—Absence of "animus furandi."—It appeared that a co-owner, prosecuted for larceny of joint property, had taken bona fide, in the belief that he was entitled to do so, and for the sole purpose of selling such property and paying to the other co-owner, his share of the price. Held, that as the taking had not been animo furandi, he could not be convicted. (Trib. App. Alexandria 16 April 1907; No. 66, p. 48.)

١٢٥ —P.C. art. 274—Arms—Definition.—Arms may be divided into two kinds: arms properly so called merely because of the manner of their employment. A theft by a person bearing an arm of the first kind is punishable under art. 274 § 6 P.C. although the arm was not used in its commission, the mere possession of such an arm when the theft took place being alone sufficient to constitute the aggravating circumstance. (Sum. Trib. Minia, 25 April 1906; No. 107, p. 76.)