The Right of Angary

W. I. Jennings

doi:10.1017/S0008197300103952

The Right of Angary

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 January 2009

W. I. Jennings

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Extract

It was decided by the Court of Appeal (Bankes and Atkin I.JJ., Scrutton L.J. dissenting on another ground), in Commercial and Estates Co. of Egypt v. Board of Trade, that the Crown has by prerogative the right to requisition the goods of neutrals found in this country, on payment of compensation, where such seizure is necessary for the defence of the realm. This right corresponds to what is known in International Law as “ the right of angary.” It is proposed to examine in this paper the nature and extent of this prerogative right.

Type: Research Article
Information: The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , November 1927 , pp. 49 - 58

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197300103952 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1927

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 49 note 1} [1915] 1KB. 271. It should be noted that the headnote is faulty, in so far as it states that Scrutton. L.J., dissented from the statement that the act was justifiable as the exercise of a prerogative right. He did not find it necessary to decide this question: see remarks of Rerutton, L.J., in Netherlands American Steam Navigation v. procurator-General. [1926] 1. K.B. 84, 99Google Scholar.

^{page 49 note 2} (1606). 12 Rep. 12.

^{page 49 note 3} (1637). 3 State Trials, 825.

^{page 50 note 1} L.Q.B. Vol. XXXV. 12.

^{page 50 note 2} [1921] l.K.B. 595.

^{page 51 note 1} Ibid. at p. 606.

^{page 51 note 2} [1916] 2.A.C. 77,100.

^{page 51 note 3} Commercial and Estates Co. of Eavpt v. Board of Trade. [1925] 1.K.B. 271,296.

^{page 51 note 4} [1915] 3.K.B. 649.

^{page 51 note 5} [1920] A.C. 508.

^{page 51 note 6} [1915] 3.K.B. 649.

^{page 51 note 7} [1920] A.C. 508.

^{page 52 note 1} Ibid. at p. 539 per Lord Atkinson.

^{page 52 note 2} [1915] 3.K.B. at p. 660.

^{page 53 note 1} A. G. v. De Kevser's Royal Hotel [1920] A.C. at pp. 569,572.

^{page 53 note 2} Crown of Leon v. Admiralty Commissioners [1921] 1.K.B. at p. 604.

^{page 53 note 3} Ibid. at p. 607. per Darling J.

^{page 53 note 4} The Zamora [1916' 2.A.C at p. 101. The latter part of the definition is disputed, but the question is immaterial to our purpose, as we are not concerned with territory in military occupation. See Hall International Law (8th ed.) p. 902 (note) and anthorities there cited especially Bullock in British Year Book of International Law, 1922–1923, pp 99–130.

^{page 54 note 1} L.Q.R. Vol. XXXV. 12.

^{page 54 note 2} [1921] 1.K.B. 595.

^{page 54 note 3} [1920] W.N. 172: 36. T.L.R. 526.

^{page 54 note 4} [1925] 1. K.B. 271.

^{page 54 note 5} [1916] 2.A.C.77.

^{page 55 note 1} [1925]. 1.K.B. 271.

^{page 55 note 2} Ibid. 294. Dicey: Law of the Constitution (8th. Ed.) p. 420

^{page 55 note 3} Quoted supra.

^{page 55 note 4} [1905] 2.K.B. 391. 406.

^{page 55 note 5} Traité de Droit International Public (1922) Tome 2.p.788.

^{page 55 note 6} Pitt Cobbett: Leading Cases on International Law (4th ed.), Vol. II., p, 386 and Hall. International Law p. 902 and authorities there quoted.

^{page 55 note 7} Op. cit. p. 384.

^{page 56 note 1} Ibid. p. 377.

^{page 56 note 2} [1916] 2.A.C.77.

^{page 56 note 3} Ibid. at p. 106.

^{page 56 note 4} Commercial and Estates Co. of Egypt v. Ball [1920] W.N. 472.

^{page 56 note 5} Commercial and Estates Co. of Egypt v. Board of Trade [1925] 1.K.B. 271

^{page 57 note 1} [1905] 2.K.B.391.

^{page 57 note 2} Collected Papers, p. 518.

^{page 57 note 3} [1921] 2.A.C. 262.

^{page 57 note 4} Commercial & Estates Co. v. Board of Trade [1925] 1.K.B. at p. 297

Article contents

The Right of Angary

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests