The Federal reserve act (approved December 23, 1913) as amended to March 4, 1931

Die hygienischen Verhältnisse der Insel Formosa

Bibliographic data

Monograph

Identifikator:: 1027347800

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-157802

Document type:: Monograph

Author:: Gredeskul, Nikolaj A. http://d-nb.info/gnd/12762628X

Title:: Befreite Arbeit

Place of publication:: Berlin

Publisher:: Seehof

Year of publication:: 1920

Scope:: 38 S

Digitisation:: 2021

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

1242 ADMINISTRATION AND LEGISLATION [PART V be held by the Commonwealth High Court to be applicable only to domiciled persons.! The position adopted by the Courts in the United Kingdom now appears to be definitely based on the view that domicile is essential as a basis of divorce jurisdiction. The case of the compulsory and artificial change of domicile through desertion has been considered, and it seems that judicial opinion is definitely against admitting even this exception to the general rule. In the case of Deck v. Deek 2 the Court was apparently in favour of the exercise of jurisdiction in this case, and in Armyfage v. Armytage 3in 1898, the President of the Probate, Admiralty, and Divorce Division, expressed the opinion in favour of the exercise of jurisdiction in such cases. But since that date judicial opinion, with some hesitation, seems to have gone the other way.4 On the other hand, it is certain that not only by law, as laid down in the Acts referred to, have Colonial Parlia- ments claimed a right to grant divorce in certain cases without domicile, but what they have claimed in the ase of a deserted wife is actually what had been asserted in several cases to be law independently of any legal snactment. It was so decided in the case of Ryley v. Ryley in New Zealand, and in the Victoria case of Hoamie v. Hoamie 8 it was held that the Court of Victoria had jurisdiction to dissolve a marriage celebrated in Victoria between a woman there domiciled and a foreigner who had not abandoned his domicile of origin, even though the foreigner might be resident and domiciled in his own country at the commence- ment of the suit. Apparently in Ripper v. Ripper the West ' Parker v. Parker, 5 C. L. R. 691, affirming 7 S. R. (N. S. W.) 384. * 2 Sw. & Tr. 90. ® [1898] P. 178. ! Dieey, Conflict of Laws,® pp. 261-4, however, supports the view that t is allowable in the light of recent English decisions; see Le Mesurier v. Le Mesurier [1895], A. C. 517; Ogden v. Oyden [1908] P. 46. * 4J. R.(N.8.)C. A. 50. Cf. Armstrong v. Armstrong, 11 N. Z. L. R. 201. *6V.L R. (LP &M.)113. In Parker v. Parker,5 C. L. R. 691, the veneral rule of domicile is asserted by the High Court, Cf. 12 V.L. R. 738.

Access restriction

Copyright

Object: Die hygienischen Verhältnisse der Insel Formosa

Monograph

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation