use this (second) argument after their own title to independent rights (c a d la première défense) had been negatived. They never purported to have merely bought the enemy owners* right or chance of escape. Thev could not claim on behalf of the enemy owners, if the enemy owners could not claim for themselves, and if the enemy owners were competent to claim for themselves, they should have entered an appearance and have done so. Enemy daimants have been repeatedly recognised, to assert rights under international conventions - for exampte The Möwe, The Marie Glaeser — or to contest condemnation of their goods, if shipped or carried under circumstances which give immumty from capture - The Roumanian, The Hdkan. Their Lordships have already decided that ownership claims on appeal must be made by appelUmts who come before the Boafd as owners It follows. that. ^ Pomt had arisen for décision, the daimants would have f aüed upon the preliminary ground that it was not avaüable to them.
Sprinzessin Cecilie, n°. 2 (ii83): „The appellants, having no such interest in the goods as would entitle them to be heard, are in the pSionTrnïre outsiders, and have no locus standi either to cn icize the order of the Court below or to ask that such an order should be varied or set aside."
Dans 1'affaire du Frogner (1086), Lord Sterndale a du se prononcer sur le point de savoir qui a quaüté pour agir devant la jundiction des prises, dans le cas oü la propriété d'une cargaison saisie a ete transférée, après la saisie, par un vendeur non-ennemi a un acquereur également non-ennemi.
The property did not pass from the seüers to the purchasers untü... five da|s after the seizure. It is said, therefore, that (the purchasers) are not the proper daimants, and have no right to appear as daimants, because the property had not passed to them at the time o seizure. There is no doubt a dictum of the late learned President, to which I was referred in The Hilding, to the effect that where the property had not passed the daim would be disaUowed... I think there are other dicta, or statements by the President to the same effect. If these dicta be correct, the 3£nantsyin this case cannot claim because they had not got theproperty in the goods at the date of seizure. The persons who would haye^the property in the goods under these circumstances would be the Rippers ït seems, so far as I can understand The Prinz Adalbert n . 2 (765), to be quite clearly decided by the Privy Council that ü the shipper has the property in the goods at the time of seizure, but he has not got katSeP£ of adjudifation, and at the time of the daim he^ot claim, and cannot assert his right to the ^«y™^?™^. — The result of the Crown's contention would be - and I cannot see that it would be a right conclusion - that goods might be brought mto thï Court, and condemnation asked for, and no ground of condemnation shoW Nobody could daim. The shipper could not claim according to thelmthority of The Prinz Adallert, because he had not got the prop-