峋
bĺnow 9.7 IIs Janteze (ufoetdue fietsira yd bewo msqst
elladtzero ent nogu merit blod or b8 (пworƆ edt Jqeoxe
.eroout Theft beligga Joat at bed ed dotɗw no aJButt
bris SIE ..ND SÞ (9781), Hidnei awaiev re foruno 992
at vlags daidd I blow asano dɔtow to sigtoning ant
C
.sonstant Jnsaerq ext
and endok beater пeeri 19vewor、asd noitaepp 9:T
stat Lenoɑneq une abrel sið oc beitións com at mwoTU
belbbsneqqad dɔtív aðısve sɗt nt,offw,bro to
ms ae,atx to Jaen to a leff tuoństw bae sjajastat
and WH
.Elevidoeqa97 2.0HDAY Brod bus tredɔ29
di steutta nesi, Ismoans; 10 Leot Teddedw (Y7184014
+
Bw10 end of rewans on need even blow eтedsbreIgni
Vos (oed eveN OF 239446 ton 290b erent brentaja
even blow dɔldw sidsoliqqs anijesimid to stuJBJ2
.smee and vortad
r
yanayong ødt mtsío neo mo10 sm
BBBO JH9Xerg ent nt
TALL LADEV Dued an to desioas yd naktie
aedono 10 motrasup end an ow Janft Lush fftw I
vae batt of sidizanų „Antic 1,dom at el doldw noqu
9.IT
་
-võizodjus JOSTIL
380
The general principle governing rights over, or
in relation to, an immoveable, is that they are regu-
lated by the lex situs, the law of the country where
the immoveable is situate, and I have not been able to
find either in the Treaties of Commerce in force be-
tween this country and China and Japan respectively at
the material times, or in the China and Japan Orders in
Council any provision derogating from the general rule.
The lex situs is not necessarily the territorial
law of the country where the immoveable is, but any law
which the courts of that country would apply to the
decision of the particular case, which might be in the
circumstances (e.g. the existence of the system of
extra-territoriality) the local law of England (see
It was
Dicey pp.501 and 509). There is an unreported case of
Re Baines, decided by Farwell J. on March 19th, 1903,
where a British subject, owning land in Egypt, made a
devise thereof, which though valid by English law,
was invalid by the Egyptian territorial law.
admitted that the question of the validity of the devie"
must be governed by Egyptian law. The court admitted
expert evidence of the Egyptian law, which was to the
effect, that, having regard to the nationality of the
owner of the land, the law which the Egyptian courts
would