١ A judgment must be considered as given by default, even though the defendant has appeared at a former hearing, if the plaintiff has formulated fresh demands at a subsequent hearing at which the defendant was not present. (App. 3 March 1903; No. 86, p. 71).

٢ v. Citation (Regularity).

v. Appeal (Time for—), 4°.

A judgment by default on opposition, though not open to fresh opposition, is none the less a judgment by default, and is therefore open to recall until the close of the sitting (Art. 120 C.C.C. Pr). This principle also applies to penal cases. It follows, therefore, that the judgment by default on opposition ought to be quashed, if the Court has refused the demand of the accused, made before the close of the sitting, for the recall of the judgment. (Cass. 31 May 1902; No. 39, p. 35).

v. Incidental claim.

v. Costs (Judicial).

v. Receiver (Judicial—Appointment of—).

v. Receiver (Judicial-Appointment of—).

١ Where a debtor and his surety are sued together, the Court of the domicile of the principal debtor is alone competent. Art. 34 par. 1 of the Code of Procedure only applies where the obligation of the co-defendants is identical. (Trib. App. Alex. 16 April 1903; No. 107, p. 86).

٢ Notwithstanding a stipulation in a civil contract indicating a special place for payment other than the debtor's domicile, the action brought to enforce the said payment remains within the jurisdiction of the Court of the defendant's domicile. (Sum. Trib. Abdine, 17 November 1902; No. 42, p. 36).

The object of the legislator, in Art. 8 of the Regulations of 13 May 1883, relating to the establishment of the General Council of the Community of Orthodox Copts, was to confer upon such Council a power of administrative control over the charitable wakfs of that sect and not to invest it with judicial powers for the purpose of determining suits relating thereto. (Trib. Assiout 14 October 1901; No. 7, I, p. 3).

The question whether or not a contract concluded by an interdicted person subsequently to his interdiction is advantageous to his interests belongs exclusively to the jurisdiction of the judge of his personal law. Consequently an investigation demanded before a Native Tribunal for the purpose of going into this question must be refused. (Trib. Assiout, 23 September 1901; No. 65, V, p. 55).

١ A native who represents as wekil a religious foundation placed under the protection of a foreign State is, nevertheless, subject to the jurisdiction of the Native Tribunals except only where his duties as wekil of such foundation are concerned. (App. 11 December 1902; No. 60 p. 54).

٢ The question of the validity of an Elam of interdiction, disputed on the ground of a defect in the composition of the council which pronounced it, is not within the jurisdiction of the Native Tribunals. (Trib. Assiout, 23 September 1901; No. 65, I, p. 55).

The only associations of persons which can be regarded as partnerships or companies are such as have for their object to make a profit out of common funds (C.C. Art. 419). These are, therefore, the only private associations of persons which have juristic personality. Consequently an association formed with a charitable object has not juristic personality and cannot, therefore, give a mandate to one of its members to sue on its behalf. Where an action has been brought on behalf of an association which has not juristic personality, the proceedings cannot be validated by a subsequent ratification by all the members. (Trib. Assiout, 14 October 1901; No. 7, II, III, p. 3).

v. Fruits, 3°.

v. Theft, 1°.

v. Preemption, 1°, 3°.

v. Retroactive effect of laws.

١ A purchaser acquires by the contract of sale a real right, and is not bound by leases granted by the vendor previously to the sale, unless such leases have legally established date prior to the legally established date of the sale. The fact that the purchaser has notice of a lease prior to the sale does not render the legally established date unnecessary and does not deprive him of the right to claim the dissolution of the lease. A lessee evicted by the purchaser has a right of recourse against the lessor for damages. (Trib. Beni-Souef, 9 April 1902; No. 9, p. 4).

٢ The privilege of the lessor extends over all movables contained in the house which is let, including those not belonging to the lessee, unless their owner can prove on revindicating them, either, that the lessor had knowledge of the fact that the lessee was not the owner of the movables, or, that the movables had been stolen or lost. (Sum. Trib. Mousky, 28 January 1903; No. 94, p. 77).

٣ v. Usury.

١ Only one action need be brought for the purpose of obtaining the cancellation of several leases, each of which is signed by a different lessee, if it can be shown from the circumstances of the case that all of the said leases have in reality been granted in favour of one and the same lessee. A claim of this nature ought not to be rejected in form, on the ground that a separate action should be brought with reference to each of the agreements. (App. 19 December 1901; No. 29, p. 23).

٢ v. Wakf, 1° I.

v. Wakf, 1° II.

v. Election (Validity).

v. Sale by licitation.

v. Servitude of view.

v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of procedure), 10°.

v. Guardianship (Withdrawal of—).

v. Slander.

v. Wakf, 1°, 2°.

v. Juristic personality; Representative (Legal), 1°; Wakf, 1° III, 2°.

v. Wakf, 1°.

v. Expert.

v. Complicity, 1°.

v. Transcription.

v. Guardianship (Withdrawal of—).

v. Resistance.

v. Dieh.