Pe OLE a Ek SR NRE I ESE RA EEE PR Vel SINE 8 SR WE a rr pe FRI 
508 PRIZE LAW DURING THE WORLD WAR 
pe a 
ad 
Sec. 383. German Decisions. Continental cases involving 
irectly the question of the nationality of goods, as contradis- 
inguished from ships, belonging to commercial companies appear 
o be almost lacking. There were a few German decisions i 
as the Lestris' from which certain conclusions may be drawn 
egarding the status of houses of trade. Among them are: that 
branch house of a neutral company must be regarded as neutral 
ven if established in enemy country provided it is not a cor- 
oration (juristische Person) and that a firm consisting of a 
ingle person established in enemy country must be regarded 
s neutral if this person is neutral by nationality. By Article 
Ob of the German prize ordinance goods belonging to a cor- 
oration (juristische person) are regarded as enemy or neutral 
ccording as the domicile of the corporation is situated in enemy 
r neutral country. In the case of the Eskimo? the claimant 
as a company having its head office at Manchester and a 
ranch in Norway. The goods claimed had been shipped from 
he latter to the former. The German Supreme Prize Court held 
hat where a company had a house in both enemy and neutral 
ountry, as was the case here, the goods must be treated as 
nemy property if they were intended for the house in enemy 
ountry. 
As already pointed out above, Germany by an amendment to 
er prize ordinance, added July 16, 1917, provided that corpora- 
ions, as distinguished from companies and partnerships, should 
e treated as enemy societies if they had their head office in 
nemy country, or the shares were held in major part by enemy 
ubjects. But in the case of the Haelen * the Supreme Prize 
Court held that this amendment applied only to ships and not 
o goods. Thus German jurisprudence originally made a dis- 
inction between corporations which were owners of ships and 
hose which were owners of goods. In the latter case only, would 
he Prize Court go behind the nationality of the corporation re- 
sulting from the situation of its head office and inquire into the 
ationality of its shareholders and directors. But after the 
doption of the amendment of July 16, 1917, to the prize ordi- 
II Entsch. 207; Fauchille et Basdevant, Jurispr. All. 302. One ques- 
ion here raised was whether goods found on board the Lestris which had 
een shipped to the claimant Cohen and Van der Laan of Rotterdam (or 
aarlem) by Cohen and Van der Laan of London, the latter being a branch 
ouse of the former, were liable to capture. The goods were held to be 
= property. ti ih 
2 Compare Verzijl, op. cit., p. 543. 
I Entsch. 382; Fauchille et Basdevant, Jurispr. All. 292. 
II Entsch. 177.