Onderstaande tekst is niet 100% betrouwbaar


§ 227.

M °U. I mten.tlon of P^es to the sale in compliance with

all legal formahties reqnued for the transfer of ownership. By bona Mc b meant that the contract is not made in contemplation of war Ssfer of ownership of ships, according to the law now m force in tS cou^trv ' does not depend on registration. Registration of ships, as re^S by

r~IF?made h? the Mmistrv of Conrmimicatión, is Sy the result of an admimsbrative rule, not an essential condition forïe tranï

ai tt T^P m UW • • • • The qUestion whether ^e aUegertrSï of the ship Fortuna is complete or not should'. . . be governed bTthe

C^(3CCOTdingtOWhichashiPis orJv rnoveableprop^y^ tCrefore, delivery of possession is essential to the transfer of its ownershipT Now the Appellant and the said (Chinese subject) have betw^H-' selves made two contracts both of which, as nothing is sa£ Öfthe one

day olMaren m the sixth year of the Republic (1017) it is expresslv Knre*?' " Pf Prf- haS 11* Sen ^oTS

töe other, dated the i3th day of March, the validity of the sale denends ™itS f T5C ***that "**ten thousandedSeaS ITtt

E ♦£ V-'°hange 0f the sbiP 5 nationahty could not be effected St to thS^^f ^ ^ a Deense obtainSanl

li tl Ti? * WaS not flvin£ the Chinese flag, when the officer

became'TSl ^ Mh°^h * had"beenso d tfninT thatneW hc?T had then not yet been issned. Thus it is obvious

oï posïssitn hT° * skd t0 haVC b6en COmPleted- More<>ver, deliver^ to hi Z,eïfr, b^n proved by the Appellant. Even according

" -Lr? * T evidence • • • • there was at least no delivery of possession tnuBfcr ownership and, irrespective of tL queS ot f ^ transaction, the ship has not lost its enemySarter

bv Z SesTthatViftïC Sbip had n0t been taken mt^ody Pleted ButTh! ?rOTn,fï: thf ^ °f the Ship Would have been com £t Vself °f tf36 ShiP-mt0 custody was the exercise of a

ngnt ol self-protection well recognised in International Law anH a« it

b was^otfl ^ ^PWouldendangerthesecuriS' of "e por f ^7&J!?S -toeüstody; therefore assuming that the ££ pietion ot the sale of the ship has been prevented by its beine taken into custody as alleged, the fautt only liesNvith the Appellant^

a Jtrn f"* ^ S6nS l6S dédsi°nS relatives aux trois vapeurs

austro-hongrois Silesia, China et Bohemia mentionnés ci-dessus qui avaient ete vendus ensemble a un sujet chinois, le 13 aoüt 1917' le jour avant le commencement de la guerre entre la Chine et 1'Autnche-Hongne. Les décisions concernant les deux derniers de ces navires contiennent encore 1'interprétation suivante de 1'article . clause 4, des „Regulations" [voir pour le texte ci-dessus § 218»*]