Part YII.
— Forms
of Action.
51
actions relating to land in the colonies or foreign countries the English Courts had, even hefore the Judicature Acts, no jurisdiction and, therefore, the removal hy those Acts of a difficulty of procedure which might have stood in the viz., the rule as to local venae way, if they had had and wished to exercise jurisdiction, did not in
Sect.
3.
Modern Actions.
—
—
any way confer jurisdiction in such cases (//O- 'I'he lack of jurisdicstill exists, and our Courts refuse to adjudicate upon claims of title to foreign land in proceedings founded on an alleged invasion of the proprietary rights attached thereto, and to award damages founded on that adjudication (m) in other words, an action for trespass to, or for recovery of, foreign land cannot be maintained in England, at any rate if the defendant chooses to put in issue the tion
o^Ynership of such land. At the same time it should be noted that, in exercise of their equitable jurisdiction iii peysonain, our Courts will entertain suits for specific performance of contracts for tlie sale of land, or respecting mortgages or equitable charges of foreign land, where the contract or agreement relied on has been made within the jurisdiction
.
On
the other hand, our Courts have jurisdiction (subject to rules Jurisdiction " over transiof procedure as to service of writs etc.) to entertain all " transitory tory actions. action and though cause of arose abroad (o) between the actions, aliens {p), subject only to one possible exception, viz., actions arising out of contracts made abroad by aliens with regard to a foreign subject-matter {q).
Part VIII.
— Maintenance
and Champerty.
81. "Maintenance" (r) may be defined as the giving of assist- Maintenance, ance or encouragement to one of the parties to an action by a person wdio has neither an interest in the action nor any olher motive recognised by the law as justifying his interference.
Br Hi sh' South Africa
Companhui de Mofambujiie, [1893] A. C. 602. Yes. Sen. 444; Paget v. Ede (1874), L. E. 18 Eq. 118; Duder v. Amsterdamsdi Trustees Kantoor, [1902] 2 Ch. 132; British South Africa Co. v. Companhia de Mocambique, supra, at p. 626, per Lord (m) See {n)
Penn
v.
Co. v.
Baltimore (1750),
1
Herschell. 1 Smith, L. C. (Uth ed.) 591. SpittaU (1870), L. R. 5 C. P. at p. 549, per Brett, J. [q] See Matlhan v. Galitzin (1874), L. E. 18 Eq. 340; Boss v. Secretary of State for India (1875), L. E. 19 Eq. 509, 535. (r) Maintenance, mainitenerdia, is derived from the verb maniitcuere, and signifieth in law a taking in hand, bearing up, or upholding of quarrels and sides, to the disturbance or hindrance of common right " (Co. Litt. 368 b). It is "when one maintaineth the one side without having any part of the thing in plea or suit" [ibid. m a). See also 1 Hawk. P. C. (8th ed.) 454; 2 Co. Inst. 212; 4 Bl. Com. c. 10, s. 12, and other definitions referred to in Bradlauqh v. Newdegate (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 1 Grard v. Tliompson (1895), 72 L. T. 264 and the various cases cited infra. According to Coke (2 Inst. 212), maintenance might be by word, writing, countenance, or deed and merely to volunteer evidence
{o)
,
Mostyn
V.
Fabrigas (1775),
(p) Jackson y.
_
might have been regarded as maintenance [Master v. Miller (1791), 4 Term Eep. at p. 340). At the present date, however, it is unlikely that anything short of pecuniary assistance would be considered illegal.
