Onderstaande tekst is niet 100% betrouwbaar

51

§ 28.

judgments of matters relating to prize law, is hardly second to Lord Stowell himself in his Notes on the Principles and Practice of Prize Courts writes as follows : „When once the Prize Court has acquired jurisdiction over the principal cause, it wül exert its authority over all the incidents. It will follow prize proceeds into the hands of agents or other persons holding them for the captors, or by any other title .. . . It may also enforce its decrees against persons having the proceeds of prizes in their hands. .., nor is the Court functus officio aftersentencepronounced, for it may proceed to enforce all rights and issue process therefor, so long as anything remains to be done touching the subject-matter. The Prize Court has also .... exclusive authority as to the allowance of f reight, damages, expenses, and costs in all cases of captures; and though a mere maritime tprt unconnected with capture jure belli may becognisable by a Court of common law, yet it is clearly established that all captures jure belli, and all torts connected therewith, are exclusively cognisable in the Prize Court. ... [citation d'autres avis et décisions analogues] ....

The Prize Court has constantly dealt with claims for freight and damages where ships or cargoes have been captured or seized, not only as between captors and owners, but also as between owners of ships and owners of cargo, and have adjudicated upon such claims whether the ship or cargo has been released, and when both ship and cargo have been released ; and apparently no action involving questions in similar cases were brought in any common law Court. And this is obviously for grounds solid in justice and convenient in practice, because the two Courts administered two different codes or systems of law; the Prize Courts deal with claims in accordance with the Law of nations and upon equitable principles freed from contracts, which almost always cease to have effect upon capture or seizure, by reason of the non-appearance or noncompletion of the contract of affreightment; whereas common law Courts would only determine the consequences of the strictly legal contractual obligations of the parties ... As I have bef ore pointed out, the Prize Court exercised j urisdiction, and exclusive j urisdiction, where the subj ect-matter had been acquitted or released, and it had been held that such jurisdiction was vested in it, even when captures had been abandoned without any proceedings having been instituted at all...."

Dans le même sens : St.-Hdena (214) ; Iolo (118) :

„The jurisdiction of the Court to deal with freight is not affected by the release of the cargo, even if it had been released upon the décision of the Court that it had been wrongfully seized."

Comp. aussi la décision Jeanne, Vera, Forsvik and Albania, n°. 2 (483)* demande non-accessoire de propriétaires de navires neutres en paiement de fret.

Voir aussi chapitre 21, § 636 et ss., oü 1'on trouve mentionnées diverses autres décisions relatives au paiement de fret, accessoires et non accessoires a des décisions principales.

Sluiten