This judgment of Lord Hobhouse was considered by Bourne J. in Mac-Donald v. Anderson, where he said that if seemed by analogy to establish two propositions: that Chinese. law Ought to be applied by His Majesty's Courts to the Incidents of land in tote ce eet Soto sao Bates og vacate: 2 i oe taal properties with their compradore by SAO Be a cote dane, Se, Sea Seis 2 ces ie, De ate ete 7—Property $50,000." In pursuance of the China, and that His Majesty's Judges 'Ought' to take judicial notice of that law. accept both propositions, and it follows that the English rule does not apply here and that T must look fo Chinese law for guidance on the subject. The only provisions of that Taw to which T" was referred by counsel "for the defendants were Articles 832 and 886 of the Civil Code which respectively define the right of superficies and deal with the effect of the creation of that and other rights after the creation of a mortgage. The buildings of Eckford Motors Ltd, were, however, erected before the creation of both mort-ages, and the question before me would seem to turn on the construc tion of the mortgage - instruments themselves as to which T have. ex-'Pressed the opinion that they did not
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.