Skip to content


Carl Franz Adolf Otto Ingenohl Vs. Wing on and Company (Shanghai), Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1928)30BOMLR753
AppellantCarl Franz Adolf Otto Ingenohl
RespondentWing on and Company (Shanghai), Ltd.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
judgment in rem-foreign judgment-conclusive effect of.;generally speaking, it would be improper for a british indian court to; review the judgment of a competent foreign tribunal. the broad principle applicable in such cases is that where the subject matter is a res so situated as to bo within the lawful control of the state under the authority of which a court sits, and that authority has conferred on the court jurisdiction to decide as to the disposition of the thing, and the court has acted within that jurisdiction, that decision is conclusive, whether, according to the law of another country, it might seem right or wrong.;castrique v. imrie (1869) l.r. 4 h.l. 414 relied on. - .....of the hongkong court was erroneous and not binding on the phillippine courts. since then, on appeal to the supreme court of the united states, an appeal from this decision has been allowed. holmes j., who delivered the judgment of the supreme court, held, in language of characteristic precision, that it would bo improper for a foreign court to review the judgment of the hongkong court about the rights of the appellant in the trade marks and names in hongkong. in this he appears to have been applying a broad principle which has been fully recognised in this country in such cases as castrique v. imriem that where the subject matter is a res so situated as to be within the lawful control of the state under the authority of which a court sits, and that authority has conferred on the.....
Judgment:

Viscount Haldane, J.

1. [For the purposes of this report, only the following extracts are material]. Meantime, in August 1922, the appellant had sued OJsen & Co. in the Supreme Court of the Phillippine Islands to recover the costs awarded him by the Court in Hongkong. The trial Judge decided in the appellant's favour and the Court of Appeal reversed this judgment, holding that the judgment of the Hongkong Court was erroneous and not binding on the Phillippine Courts. Since then, on appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, an appeal from this decision has been allowed. Holmes J., who delivered the judgment of the Supreme Court, held, in language of characteristic precision, that it would bo improper for a foreign Court to review the judgment of the Hongkong Court about the rights of the appellant in the trade marks and names in Hongkong. In this he appears to have been applying a broad principle which has been fully recognised in this country in such cases as Castrique v. Imriem that where the subject matter is a res so situated as to be within the lawful control of the State under the authority of which a Court sits, and that authority has conferred on the Court jurisdiction to decide as to the disposition of the thing, and the Court has acted within that jurisdiction, that decision is conclusive, whether, according to the law of another country, it might seem right or wrong.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //