23

EL—25

(14.) Treaty Interest on Debt within scope of Article 296 of the Treaty of Versailles—Debt paid by Cheque—Not presented. There have been a number of cases in which debtors have refused to pay interest upon the amount of a debt in respect of which a cheque was forwarded to the creditor shortly before the outbreak of war, but was never presented in consequence of hostilities. One of these cases—Skelton v. Stahlwerke-Verband A.G. (No. 1652) —came before the Tribunal (Second Division) for decision. A British national had, towards the end of July, 1914, forwarded a cheque to a German creditor in payment of the balance due by him. The cheque was received by the creditor after the outbreak of war. The debtor refused to pay interest, and a joint decision was given against him by the dealing Offices. The debtor appealed from the joint decision under paragraph 20 of the Annex to Section 111, Part X, and the Rules of the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that not find as a fact that the creditor ever accepted the cheque as payment, either conditional or otherwise, for the debt, and that there was accordingly a debt within Article 296 on which interest was payable in accordance with the Treaty. (15.) Liability of German Shipowner for Debts incurred by Captain of Ship. The interesting question as to the liability of a German shipowner for debts properly incurred by the captain in connection with a ship in a British port came before the Tribunal in Rhymney Iron Co. Ltd. v. F. A. Vinnen & Co. (No. 908), (Recueil, iii, p. 785). The claim was by a British company for the amount due for trimming the cargo on a German ship whilst in a British port on the instructions of the captain. The ship was subsequently condemned as prize. The Tribunal were invited to assume, for the purposes of that particular case, that the law of the flasr —namely, German law —applied, and they accordingly decided that under German law, except on the happenings of events specified in Articles 771 (4) and (5), 773, 774, and 775 of the German Commercial Code, which were not present in this case, the ship and freight alone are chargeable in respect of transactions entered into by the master within the scope of his authority. Although claims are directed against the shipowner as a matter of procedure, he is not personally liable. Any liability which may come into existence is terminated by the loss of the ship, and in the present case the liability of the shipowners to pay for the trimming of the cargo came to an end on the condemnation of the ship in prize. (16.) Government Guarantee of Debts established through Clearing Procedure —Article 296 (b) of Treaty of Versailles. The Treaty provides, under Article 296 (6) and paragraph IV of the Annex to Section 111, Part X, that amongst other cases in which the high contracting parties are not to be responsible for the payment of enemy debts is included the case in which the debtor was at the outbreak of war in a state of bankruptcy or failure, but in such case the procedure specified by the Annex is to apply to payment of dividends. These provisions have given rise to considerable discussion between the Clearing Offices as to whether the right to valorization where the amount of the dividend was stated in marks is a right distinct and independent from the Government guarantee. This point was decided by the Tribunal in the case of Reader v. Boehme (No. 880), (Recueil, iv, p. 48). The German national had become bankrupt in 1899, and dividends were declared during and after the war. The trustee in bankruptcy paid the dividends into Court under Article 372 of the German Civil Code, whereby a debtor can release himself in respect of a creditor who cannot be found, by payment into the Amtsgericht. The Tribunal found that under German law such a deposit only releases a debtor when the debtor also waives any further right to the sum deposited. In the present case the trustee in bankruptcy had not done this during the war, and, although he made a declaration after the Treaty waiving his right to the sum deposited, the amount was withdrawn by the claimant's former agent. The Tribunal held that these proceedings after the date of the Treaty could have no valid effect, and that the debtor in his capacity of trustee was liable to pay the dividends declared during the war through the Clearing Office. The Tribunal also held that the Government guarantee is separate and distinct from the provisions as to valorization, and that therefore, although such guarantee did not apply, dividends declared during the war must be credited through the Clearing Office at pre-war rate of exchange with interest, but that dividends declared after the 10th January, 1920, are not within Article 296, and are not to be credited through the Clearing Offices. In R. Atwood Beaver & Co. v. Kreitz (No. 1484), (Recueil, iv, p. 65), a further point was decided by the Tribunal on the subject of bankruptcy law in Germany. A British claim against a German debtor, under Article 296, was contested on the ground that bankruptcy proceedings were commenced in October, 1914, and a compulsory arrangement with creditors of the debtor was entered into in October, 1919. Under German law this compulsory arrangement is binding on all creditors, and it was therefore contended that the only debt outstanding at the 10th January, 1920, was for the 5-per-cent. composition. The Tribunal held that Article 296 (b) and paragraph IV of the Annex make it clear that, subject to the express exceptions cited in paragraph IV, the Treaty intended to provide for recovery of any sum within the scope of Article 296 which was the subject-matter of a contractual vinculum juris, irrespective of the juridical position of one of the parties thereto with regard to the legal liability under the insolvency laws of his own country, and that in such circumstances a debt within the meaning of Article 296 may exist, although it was not owing on the 10th January, 1920, from a fully capable and responsible debtor. (17.) Bank Current Accoun—Claim under Article 296 of the Treaty of Versailles —Rate of Interest. The question as to the rate of interest which, having regard to paragraph 22 of the Annex to Section 111, Part X, of the Treaty, ought to be paid in respect of a current account came before the Tribunal in Schwerdt v. Frankfurter Bank (No. 847), (Recueil, iv, p. 90). A British creditor had a current account with a German bank before the war, to which the bank credited dividends collected. The bank allowed the usual current account interest at rates varying from 2J per cent, to 4J per cent. The creditor contended that the pre-war contract was cancelled and that he was entitled to 5 per cent. Treaty interest, or to a rate of 4 per cent., which was a fair rate and one which German banks were in the habit of paying to the Treuhander. The debtors contended that during the war German banks paid on current accounts the uniform rate of per cent, which had been fixed at a meeting of bankers, The Tribunal held that, although the Treuhander usually collected 4 per cent, from banks, this did not entitle the creditor to claim that rate, and that the pre-war custom or contract by which interest was payable on the creditor's account at the usual bank rates would be continued under paragraph 22 of the Annex, so that the creditor was entitled not to any fixed pre-war rate, but to whatever rate was payable during the war, which on such accounts was, as above stated, the rate of per cent. (18.) Debt under British Judgment—Period of Prescription. The right to claim for a debt under a British judgment, and the extent to which such right may be affected by the period of prescription, came before the Tribunal in Le Marchant v. Baron D'Orville von Lowenclou (No. 1251), (Recueil, iv, p. 17). The British claimant had agreed to sell shares to the German debtor in the year 1906, and upon default in payment having been made obtained a judgment in the British Courts in the year 1908 for the debt and costs. The debtor appeared in the action but did not deliver a defence. The costs had not been taxed, and as to that item the claimant did not press his claim. The debt was contested on the ground of prescription. The Tribunal held that under German law the period of prescription is thirty years, except for a trader, for whom the period is two years if the debt arises out of a contract for sale and purchase. The debtor had submitted