The Hypatia
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 December 1916 |
| Date | 21 December 1916 |
| Court | Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division |
Prize Court
Sir S. T. Evans, President
The Hypatia
The MiramichiDID=ASPMELR 13 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 21 112 L. T. Rep. 349 (1915) P. 71
The Indian ChiefENR Roscoe's English Prize Cases, vol. 1, 251 3 Ch. Rob. 12
The VenusUNK 8 Cranch, 253
The Jonge KlassinaENR Roscos, vol. 1, 485 5 Ch. Rob. 297
Prize Court International law Domicil
574 MARITIME LAW CASES. PRIZE CT.] THE HYPATIA. [PRIZE CT. Dec. 4. 11.and 21,1916. (Before Sir S. T. Evans, President.) The Hypatia. (a) Prize Court-International law - Domicil-Commercial domicil-'Partnership firm in neutral country-Members of partnership enemy subjects-No partner resident in nsuiral country-Property in goods shipped by firm in neutral country-Passing of property-Seizure-Condemnation us enemy property. In order that a person may acquire a commercial domicil in any country, residence in that country is an essential condiiion of the acquisition of such domicil. Even a subject of a belligerent country may acquire a commercial domicil so as to protect his properly at sea during a stale of xuar if he fit fits the above necessary condition. If, however, he is not resident in the neutral country, though ha carries on htisiness there through agents, any goods which are his property and are being carried in a British ship during the progress of hostilities are liable to condemnation. A partnership firm which carried on business in A., a neutral, country, was composed exclusively of persons of German nationality. None if the viembirs resided in A., and the business was carried on by agents. The firm consigned certain goods to a German house before the outbreak of war on a British ship. During the voyage, and after the declaration of wart the vessel was diverted to an English port and the goods were seized as enemy property. On an application being made by the. Crown for their Kondemnalion as prize, the consignors put in a claim on the ground that the goods were the properly of a firm, which had a comnercial domicil in a neutral country, and were therefore not liable to be confiscated. Held, that, as all the partners rf the firm were enemy subject, and as none of the partners resided in the neutral country so as to possess a cummercial doviiei', the goods were enemy property aitdrnusi be condemned as such. This was a case in which the Procurator-General, on behalf of the Crown, claimed the condemnation of certain bales of wool which were Keized on board the British ship Hypalia, which sailed for (a)Reported by J. A. Slater, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Buenos Ayres in July 1914, about a month befors the declaration of war between Great Britain and Garmany The wool was shipped by a firm named H. Fuhrmann and Co., who carried on business in Buenos Ayres, and was consigned to a company carrying on business in Germany. The firm of Fubrmann was composed of four persons, all of whom were German subjects. None of them resided in. Argentina, and the only active member who had over resided in Buenos Ayres had left that city for Europe in 1;M0, The South Ameri. can business was transacted entirely by agents and clerks. After the outbreak of war the Hypatia was diverted to Liverpool whilst on her voyage, and the wool was seized as prize. The consignors then put in a claim, on the ground that as the wool was the property of a firm which had a commercial domicil in a neutral country, it had a neutral character and was not liable to condemnation. The Attorney-General Bit F. E, Smith, K.C.) and Stranger for the Procurator-General...
To continue reading
Request your trial