די
P
282
adapted the words of Lindley M.R. in Manners v. Pearson (1898) 1 Ch.581, which were cited with approval by Bankes L.J. in Di Ferdinando y, Simon, Smits & Co. (1920) 3 K.B. 409. If the ordinary writ of execution must be expressed
in Hongkong currency, as, I am advised, is the case, it is clear that the judgment debt must be converted at some date before the issue of the writ of execution.
4.
If, however, a writ of execution can be expressed in foreign currency a practical difficulty arises. The bailiff will not know what quantity of goods he should seize and sell, because the rate of exchange may vary considerably between the date of seizure and the date on which the remittance is made in foreign currency. This difficulty might be got over by seizure of a sufficiently large quantity to allow a margin for the fluctuations of
exchange, or any deficiencies might be made up by a supplementary seizure.
5. It may be pointed out that the ideal of
giving the judgment creditor what he was entitled to ie
sometimes difficult of attainment. This may be made clear
by an example. A, resident in England, obtains judgment against B in Hongkong for $40,000. The dollar is then at the exchange of 5 shillings to the dollar. If B had paid
his judgment debt immediately, A's agent in Hongkong would
have remitted £10,000 to A in England. B does not pay, and
eventually he removes to England. The Hongkong judgment is
registered and enforced in England. Under it A obtaine
g.d. $40,000 but, as exchange has dropped to 2/6, this is worth
to him only £5,000. I do not suggest that such a case as
this could be avoided by any practicable statutory provision for conversion. I give this example merely in order to show that a receipt of the nominal amount due does not always mean that the judgment creditor has not lost on exchange. This seems to me to dispose of any theoretical objection
to
I