of (the German buyers) (the Japanese vendors), prior to the seizure of the goods, exercised their right of stopping the goods in transitu, and that the property m the goods thereupon reverted to (the Japanese firm). — Mr. M. has contended that the notice of the stoppage of the goods m transitu was given prior to the seizure, and that, undèTthe Sale of Goods Act section 62, sub-section 3, the facts show that the consignées were deemed to be insolvent within the meaning of that Act, because they had ceased to pay their debts in the ordinary course of business. The Déclaration of London has been referred to (article 60, alinéa 2) lüe case determines nothing with regard to the Déclaration of London' 1 wish to make that plain for obvious reasons. — As to the claim put lorward that there was a stoppage in transitu prior to the seizure, it is' m evidence that.... the final act of seizure [comp. § 708] was on September n. It was only on September 15 that Mr. S, solicitor to the claimants, sent to the Collector of the Customs the notice which is reüed upon as the notice stopping the goods in transitu. This leads me to observe that the notice was addressed to the Collector at the Port of J-ondon, „'War Destination*.*, which shows that this gentleman knew perfectly well that at that time the goods in question were in the hands of the representaties of the Crown as captors, and that the transit was over. therefore, the notice purporting to exercise the right of stoppage in transitu was not given prior to the seizure, but subsequently — I may add that it would require very close argument to convince me that people whose bankers decline to pay their acceptances, by reason of the outbreak ot the war, are people who have ceased to pay their debts in the ordinary course of business. But it is not necessary in this case to decide any point upon that. J
(2) La Cour des prises pour 1'Afrique du Sud (Ville du Cap), elle aussi, a eu a se prononcer sur un prétendu cas de „stoppage in transitu". 5
II s'agissait, dans 1'espèce, d'un navire neutre (norvégien) Craigisla (191), arrivé dans le port allemand de Lüderitzbucht, oü 1'on avait commencé a débarquer sa cargaison de charbon qu'une société anglaise avait vendue a crédit a une société aUemande du Sud-ouest africain. Pendant qu'on opérait le déchargement du navire, un corps d'expédition de 1'Union sud-africaine occupa ledit port et saisit la cargaison de charbon [vob aussi §§ 175 et 457]. La-société venderesse anglaise fit valoir devant la Cour qu'eüe en avait recouvré la propriété a la suite d'un „stoppage in transitu", effectué par les forces miütabes de 1'Union et que, par conséquent, la cargaison devait être considérée comme propriété non-ennemie. Cette prétention fut toutefois rejetée.
„I faü to perceive any ground for holding that H. M. S. Astraea (le batiment de guerre capteur) in seizing the coal effected a stoppage in