—Civil claim—Public action barred; v. Civil claim, 16.

٦٠ —Agreement to allow appeal.—Although by virtue of art. 27 C.C.C.Pr., the Summary Court has jurisdiction to determine, in last resort, claims voluntarily brought before it, the parties to a contract cannot legally agree that all claims which may thereafter arise between them shall be determined in first instance only by that Court. Such agreement is void as contrary to the established order of jurisdiction. (Trib. App. Cairo, 28 May 1907; No. 113, p. 83.)

٦١ —Attempted theft of crops—Markaz Tribunal.—The charge of attempted theft of standing crops is triable by the Markaz Tribunal provided it be established that the crops which it was intended to steal were of a value not exceeding P.T. 25. Hence this Tribunal has power to try a case of attempted theft of clover if it appear that the thief would have been unable to carry away a quantity exceeding in value P.T. 25, or that the total value of the clover on the spot was below that amount. (Markaz Trib. Tahta, 22 April 1907; No. 94, p. 68.)

٦٢ —Civil suit relating of movable property—Competent tribunal.—The Court of the district wherein the defendant is domiciled has exclusive jurisdiction to try a civil suit upon a contract relating to movable property, notwithstanding the fact that the parties to such contract have agreed that payment shall be made at a place situated in another district. (App. 1 Jan. 1907; No. 27, p. 18.)

٦٣ —Receiver, appointment of, by Summary Court—Case pending before Court of First Instance.—The Summary Court has no jurisdiction to make an order appointing a receiver for the purpose of managing land which is already the subject-matter of an action pending in the Court of First Instance. Application must, for this purpose, be made to the latter Court. (Sum. Trib. Minia-el-Kamh, 8 Oct. 1906; No. 45, p. 28.)

٦٤ —Urgent measure—Guardian of interdict—Legality of appointment.—The respondents had, as guardians of an interdicted heir, applied to the Summary Tribunal for the appointment, as an interim measure of urgency, of a receiver against the co-heirs of their ward. A receiver was appointed, but the co-heirs appealed, contending that the respondents were not lawful guardians because the Patriarchate which had appointed them, had, by so doing, exceeded its jurisdiction. Held, that the point taken by the appellants was connected with the merits of the case, and that the Summary Tribunal when hearing an application for an urgent measure had, consequently, no jurisdiction to give judgment upon it. The fact that the Patriarchate was a lawfully constituted authority was sufficient to justify that Tribunal in deeming the appointment of the respondents to have been valid. (Trib. App. Cairo, 9 April 1907; No. 65, p. 47.)

—Executive Act—Expropriation for public utility—Irregularity—Possession—Damages; v. Expropriation for public utility, 27.

٦٥ —Alien civil claimant—Direct summons—Public action.—Although the fact, that a civil claimant who has taken out a direct summons against an accused is an alien, deprives the Court of jurisdiction to adjudicate on his claim for damages, yet such Court may, nevertheless, retain and deal with the public action. (Sum. Trib. Attarin, 12 July 1906; No. 10, p. 3.)

٦٦ —Alien defendant—Change of nationality during trial.—The jurisdiction of the Native Courts is, as regards the nationality of the parties to an action, to be determined by their nationality at the time when the action is brought. Where, therefore, an action is begun between natives, these Courts can retain and determine it notwithstanding the fact that, in consequence of her marriage, one of the defendants has, during the trial, become a Russian subject. (App. 3 March 1907; No. 90, p. 67.)

٦٧ —Alien guarantor.—An action, the original parties to which are natives, is not taken out of the jurisdiction of the Native Courts by the mere fact that a defendant has sought to bring in an alien as guarantor. (App. 15 April 1906; No. 2, p. 1.)

٦٨ —Alien interested—Receiver, appointment of—Urgent measure.—Where, in an application made to the Summary Tribunal for the appointment of a receiver as a measure of urgency, the parties to the proceedings are all local subjects, the mere fact that certain aliens are interested in the question at issue, does not afford a ground for pleading to the jurisdiction of the Native Tribunals. (Trib. app. Cairo, 20 April 1907; No. 91, I, p. 67.)

٦٩ —Alien plaintiff—Jurisdiction of Native Tribunals by agreement.—An agreement to the effect that an alien shall, on default in payment of a debt due to him, be empowered to sue in a Native Tribunal, is void as contrary to public policy. (Sum. Trib. Kafr El Zayat, 22 April 1907; No. 106, p. 76.)

٧٠ —Alluvial lands—Art. 61 C.C.—Interpretation.—Questions arising under article 61 C.C. are within the jurisdiction of the Native Courts. By reference to the Decree of 1274 A.H., it is merely intended to indicate the law governing the apportionment of certain alluvial lands and not to limit the jurisdiction of the Native Courts. (Sum. Trib. Mousky, 23 Dec. 1906; No. 34, p. 20.)

٧١ —Dragoman of consulate defendant—Local subject.—A local subject who, without the consent of the Egyptian Government, has been appointed dragoman in a consulate cannot, on the ground of such appointment, take objection to the jurisdiction of the Native Courts to retain and deal with an action brought against him in those Courts. (App. 18 Dec. 1906; No. 14, p. 9.)

٧٢ —Executive act—Land tax—Administrative seizure—Ownership of land seized.—In consequence of the provisions of art. 16 O.D., of arts. 9, 10, 11, Decr. of 17 Dec. 1889, and of arts. 5, 10, Decr. of 1 March 1894, the Native Courts have no jurisdiction to determine the question whether the administrative authorities have acted in an irregular manner by reimposing taxes in respect of land which had been previously exempted without notifying the parties concerned. The Ministry of Finance has exclusive cognizance of the matter, and its decision is final. The Courts can, however, by virtue of art. 15 O.D., determine the ownership of land on which execution has been levied in pursuance of administrative proceedings for expropriation. The question does not concern the incidence of a tax nor the stopping of the execution of an administrative act, but merely the determining of the legal position of the parties resulting from such act. (Trib. App. Zagazig, 14 Nov. 1906; No. 61, I, p. 45).

٧٣ —Infant's estate—Claim for arrears of maintenance.—The guardian of two infants retained the management of their estate, and entered into an agreement with their mother to pay her a certain sum for their maintenance. On his failing to pay as agreed, their mother sued him for the recovery of arrears. Held, that the matter was within the jurisdiction of the Native Courts, notwithstanding the provision of Decree 19 November 1896 art. 5, whereby the Meglis Hasby is empowered, inter alia, to decide questions relating to the supervision of guardians' management, and necessary and urgent measures for the protection of infants' interests. (Sum. Trib. Menshieh, 7 Jan. 1907; No. 79, p. 59.)

٧٤ —Mehkemeh judgment—Execution.—Execution of a final judgment of the Mehkemeh must issue in accordance with the provisions of the Decree of 27 May 1897, Art. 92 s. A person claiming to be entitled to such execution cannot, therefore, claim to have the judgment enforced by the Native Courts. The allegation made by a third party to the effect that the judgment of the Mehkemeh was obtained by collusion for the purpose of defrauding him, does not afford a ground on which these Courts can entertain the claim, even though it does not appear that there existed any legal means by which such party might have protected himself in the proceedings before the Mehkemeh. (Trib. App. Cairo, 12 Feb. 1907; No. 43, p. 27.)

٧٥ —Mehkemeh judgment—Regularity of administrative execution.—The Native Courts have jurisdiction to determine whether execution by the administrative authorities of a judgment of the Mehkemeh has been levied in a regular manner and to adjudicate on claims arising out of such execution. (Trib. App. Cairo, 26 March 1907; No. 56, I, p. 36.)

٧٦ —Nazir of mausoleum—Means of fulfilling duties.—Although the Mehkemeh has sole jurisdiction in questions concerning the appointment of the nazir of a mausoleum, it is for the Native Tribunals to secure for him, if necessary, the means of fulfilling his duties. (Sum. Trib. Minia el Kamh, 12 May 1907; No. 117, p. 84.)

٧٧ —Wakf—Receiver, appointment of.—The fact that a nazir has been nominated in a Wakfieh does not deprive the Summary Tribunal of the power to appoint a receiver to provisionally manage the wakf property. (Trib. App. Cairo, 20 April 1907; No. 91, II, p. 67.)

—Prescription of right of action—Presumption of laches; v. Appeal, 5.

—Reimposition—Absence of notice—Jurisdiction; v. Jurisdiction of Native Tribunals, Restrictions on, 72.

—Art. 274, § 6 P.C.—Arms—Definition; v. Theft, 125.

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

—Taking by co-owner—"Bona fides"; v. Theft, 124.

—Interpretative provision—Retrospective effect; v. Retrospective effect of law, 119.

—Right of appeal—Law applicable; v. Appeal, 7.

—Infant's property—Voidable lease and unauthorized sale by guardian—Rights of parties; v. Infant, 38.

—Option to renew—Refusal to vacate—Implied declaration of renewal; v. Infant, 38.

—Wakf—Assignment of powers by nazir—Subsequent lease by him; v. Wakf, 127.

٧٨ —Cotton-wood—Non-removal.—When a tenancy of land commences immediately after it has borne a cotton crop, the lessee cannot claim damages on the ground that, when possession was given him, the cotton-wood had not been removed. No deterioration results from the presence of the cotton-wood and an agreement on the part of the lessor to remove it cannot be implied. The same rule applies in case of sale. (Trib. Beni-Souef, 23 Oct. 1906, and 19 March 1907; No. 80, p. 59.)

٧٩ —Rights of lessee—Damages for non-enjoyment—Personal right.—Rights arising under a contract of lease are merely personal. Where, therefore, at the commencement of a tenancy, the land still remains in the possession of a previous lessee whose lease has determined, and the lessor brings an action of ejectment, the new lessee cannot join as a third party claiming damages from the defendant on the ground that the latter had prevented his obtaining possession. Since he has a merely personal claim against the lessor, it is from him alone that the lessee must seek redress. (App. 15 Jan. 1907; No. 75, p. 58.)

—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.)