EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT itself jurisdiction, and this was seldom exer cised except in serious cases. These were cases punishable capitally. The author then relates the history of the special treaties with modern nations, espe cially with the United States, in which suits against the Chinese were to be tried by the native magistrate, the plaintiff's consul only attending to watch proceedings, suits against foreigners being tried by representa tives of the foreign nationality. We have provided for consular courts in certain foreign jurisdictions including China with rights of appeal to federal courts of the United States. As a matter of practice Chinese officials have seldom attended proceedings before the for eign tribunals, but many foreign representa tives have so acted at hearings before the native magistrates as to practically usurp their jurisdiction, and this the author regards as one of the gravest abuses connected with foreign intercourse in China. " Extra-territoriality," he says, " is at best an unsatisfac tory makeshift." It involves a multiplicity of suits, confusion of laws, and calls forth national prejudices. JURISPRUDENCE. " The Province of Quebec and the French Civil Code," by Edonard-Fabre Surveyer, La Revue Legate (V. xii, p. 12). JURISPRUDENCE (History). " A His torical Sketch of the Growth of Mohamme dan Jurisprudence," by Abdur Rahim, Calcutta Law Journal (V. iii, p. 19"). LITERATURE. "Recollections of a Country Lawyer," by Sol L. Long. Courier Printing Co., Winfield, Kansas. MANUALS. " The Elements of Business Law," by Ernest W. Huffcut. Price $1.00. Ginn and Co., Boston, 1906. A teacher's manual for laymen. MINING. " The Mines Act of Ontario," by J. M. Clark, Canada Law Journal (V. xlii. p. 89). MORTGAGES. " Clog on the Equity of Redemption," by Edmund G. Kaye, Cana dian Law Times (V. xxvi, p. 88). MORTGAGES. " Sub-Mortgages," by P. Duraiswamy Aiyanzar, Bombay Law Re porter (V. viii, p. 42). MORTGAGES (Chattel). " The Effect of Foreign Chattel Mortgages upon the Rights of Subsequent Purchasers and Creditors"
239
is discussed by Marion Griffin in the March Michigan Law Review (V. iv, p. 358). By weight of authority a chattel mortgage is a transfer of the property itself as security for the debt and creates more than a mere lien. The true principle governing the validity of chattel mortgages is that the law of the place of contract governs as to the nature, validity, construction, and effect of the contract. Some courts make a distinction however, and hold that priorities in attachments are determined by the law of the forum. "Nor can it be successfully contended that because the registration laws of a state have no extra territorial force, the priority of a chattel mortgage conferred by registration is not entitled to enforcement in other states. Strictly speaking, priority is not conferred by registration. As we have already seen, it is conferred by the contract itself, the statutes concerning registration being designed merely to protect that priority by supplying a con structive notice which shall take the place of actual notice whenever the latter may be wanting. Priority is only the legal term for the superiority of a prior title or lien. Before equity worked out the doctrine of innocent purchase, the first contract invariably gave a superior title. The doctrine of innocent purchase formed an exception to the general rule, and to prevent its too wide operation, laws were enacted requiring registration and making that equivalent to actual notice. But priority is no more conferred by registra tion than by actual notice. Tt existed before them, and though liable now to be lost for want of one or the other, it has its origin in the mortgage itself. "The majority of decisions are for the most part based on the true principle, that the registration laws of their own states do not apply to a mortgage on property which at the time of the execution of the mortgage was within the jurisdiction of another state, but that comity will give to such mortgage, if properly executed and recorded there, the same effect that it has by the law of that state, notwithstanding its execution or regis tration might have been invalid under the laws of their own state." He admits, however, that this priority of the contract made in another state is recog nized by comity and not stricti juris.
