the ordinary course of the law, for generally Courts exercise jurisdiction only over persons who are within the territorial limits of their jurisdiction."

In a later case, Sirdar Gurdyal Singh v. The Rajah of Faridkote, [1894] A. C. 670, at p. 683, the Judicial Committee laid it down that all jurisdiction is properly territorial, and that territorial jurisdiction attaches, with special exceptions, upon all persons either permanently or temporarily resident within it; but it does not follow them after they have withdrawn from it, and when they are living in another independent country. It exists always as to land within the territory, and it may be exercised over movables within the territory, and in questions of status or succession governed by domicile, it may exist as to persons domiciled, or who when living were domiciled, within the territory. They further state that "in a personal action to which none of these causes of jurisdiction apply, a decree' pronounced in absentem by a foreign Court, to the jurisdiction of which the defendant has not in any way submitted himself, is by international law an absolute nullity. He is under no obligation of any kind to obey it, and it must be regarded as a mere nullity by the Courts of every nation, except (when authorized by special local legislation) in the country of the forum by which it was pronounced."

See Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714; Rand v. Hanson, 154 Mass. 87; Deacon v. Chadwick, 1 O. L. R. 346.

There is one exception to that doctrine, and that is, that foreigners or foreign corporations may be sued here if they submit to the jurisdiction, but it has been pointed out that while the parties cannot by their agreement give jurisdiction which the Court does not possess itself, yet a contract may be made to provide for the jurisdiction of the Courts of a special country, and if that agreement forms part of a contract, the Court will enforce it. The Moxham, 1 P. D. 107, Law v. Garrett, 8 Ch. D. 26, and Johnstone v. Machielsne, 3 Camp. 44, decide that where the parties have chosen a home or foreign Court as their forum, it is the prima facie duty of our Courts to act upon that arrangement.

It may safely be considered that a foreign corporation with a general agent or manager within a Province of this Dominion (whether it is "foreign" in the sense of being incorporated by the Dominion of Canada, or by any other Province, with its head office out of this Province, or because it is formed by a foreign sovereignty) will be considered as resident within the jurisdiction where that general agent lives, or that office exists.

This appears from the following cases: Newby v. Van Oppen, L. R. 7 Q. B. 293; Pattison v. Mills, 2 Bligh N. C. 519; Parker v. Odette, 16 P. R. 69; Re West Cumberland J. & S. Co., [1893] 1 Ch. 713; McArthur v. Cornwall, [1892] A. C. 75; Harris v. Bank of B. N A., 19 P. R. 51; In re Benfield and Stevens, 17 P. R. 300, 339; In re Confederation Life Assn. and Cordingly, 19 P. R. 16, 89.

If it has no office in Ontario or has only an agent with limited powers, the rule is, of course, different: Pritchard v. Standard Ins. Co., 7 O. R. 188; Armstrong v. Lancashire Ins. Co., 3 O. L. R. 395; McArthur v. Macdonell, 1 Man. L. R. 334; Jones v. Scottish Acc. Ins. Co., 17 Q. B. D. 421.

There are to be found in Rousillon v. Rousillon, 14 Ch. D. 351, at p. 371, and in Schibsby v. Westenholz, L. R. 6 Q. B. 155, some more extended details as to the circumstances which may give the Courts of one country jurisdiction.

They are as follows:

1. When the defendant is a subject of that country.

2. When he was resident there when the action was begun. 3. Where he, as plaintiff, has selected the forum in which he is afterwards sued.

4. Where he has voluntarily appeared.

5. Where he has contracted to submit himself to the forum in which judgment was obtained.

6. And (possibly) where he has real estate within the jurisdiction in respect of which a cause of action has arisen while he was within the jurisdiction.

EFFECT OF LEGISLATION CONFERRING JURISDICTION. Starting, however, generally, with the proposition that the Courts have territorial jurisdiction only, and that there must be sufficient residence within the jurisdiction to found

a right of suit, there are some domestic enactments which seem to render foreigners or foreign corporations amenable to their jurisdiction.

By our own Rules of Court jurisdiction has been assumed in several cases which would seem to depart from the principle of territorial jurisdiction. But wherever this occurs, then, although our Courts are bound by them (Ellis v. McHenry, L. R. 6 C. P. 228) and have jurisdiction to entertain the claim and to pronounce a judgment, yet it cannot be doubted that if the facts proved at the trial indicate to the Court that the real foundation of jurisdiction is wanting, the action would be dismissed. "The Legislature" (to quote the language of Lord Selborne, L.C., in Berkeley v. Thomson, 10 App. Cas. at p. 53) "has not said that a process served under the 4th section (of the Bastardy Act) is to give jurisdiction where there is no jurisdiction without it." See Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, at p. 727.

The rules are rules of procedure only and are not intended to affect, and do not affect, the rights of parties: British South African Co. v. Compagnie Mocambique, [1893] A. C. 628.

For example, an action might well be brought against a foreigner under our Rule 162 (e) because a breach of a contract to be performed in this Province has occurred within it. But if it were proved that the parties were both foreigners an had in the contract provided that they would be bound crly by the jurisdiction of the French Courts, or that by the law of the foreign country where both parties were resident its Courts had sole jurisdiction over them and their contracts (if made there), then it is conceived that the Court would hold that its jurisdiction was ousted.

If a judgment based on service under such a rule were pronounced or were obtained by default, then it would be open to question when proceeded upon elsewhere. Such has been the action of the New York Courts regarding such judgments, as appears from Shepherd v. Wright, 113 N. Y. 582.

Foreign judgments are only treated as evidence of a duty or obligation to pay the amount, and, as was said by Parke, B., in Russell v. Smyth, 9 M. & W. at p. 819, the Court which has to consider the effect of such service may receive evidence

of anything which negatives the duty or forms a legal excuse for not performing it.

The stream can rise no higher than its source, and if the Legislature of Ontario cannot adopt legislation affecting or binding aliens abroad, then it can confer no jurisdiction on its Courts to bind them by a judgment. It can and does, however, arm its Courts with sufficient jurisdiction to notify aliens abroad of proceedings taken against them, which, under some circumstances, it thinks ought to be determined in its Courts. But, if the jurisdiction thus conferred is not submitted to, its exercise is futile.

RELATIONS OF THE PROVINCES.

In respect to the different Provinces of the Dominion, the matter is slightly, though not fundamentally, different. All Canadians are British subjects, but though not aliens, are, if resident outside this Province, foreigners, in the sense of being outside the jurisdiction of our Courts. While an Act of the Imperial Parliament may give a Court jurisdiction over British subjects wherever they are, and while Acts of the Parliament of Canada will bind Canadians in the same way, the same cannot be said of the Acts of any Provincial Legislature as affecting the residents of any other Province. For the purposes of contract and suit they are foreign, and must be treated just as if they resided in a different country. Provincial jurisdiction in such matters is derived from the B. N. A. Act, and is confined to "Property and civil rights in the Province and to the administration of justice in the Province, including the constitution, maintenance, and organization of Provincial Courts, both of civil and criminal jurisdiction, and including procedure in civil matters in those Courts."

It would be an innovation to hold that a resident of Quebee could be sued in Ontario for a tort committed in Quebec, merely because he was a Canadian. But he can be sued in Ontario for a tort committed here by virtue of our Rules. He is treated as subject to jurisdiction only because he has, when within this jurisdiction, committed an unlawful act causing damage here-an act for which in his own Province he could not be made amenable, unless it were unlawful there -and thus giving rise to a breach of civil right in Ontario.

There seems no real difficulty in holding that each Province is a separate sovereignty, without power to affect those Canadians living outside its limits, except so far as international law warrants it. This is now the opinion of a Divisional Court in Ontario: Deacon v. Chadwick, 1 O. L. R. 346.

The modern view of the Canadian constitution is in favour of regarding each Province, as to its property and civil rights, as an independent state when contrasted with the Federal jurisdiction. It is only a natural extension of this well accepted principle to treat the inhabitants of the different Provinces as foreigners, in a legal sense, in relation to each other.

It is, of course, the only practical solution of the question of Provincial jurisdiction. It would be intolerable if the civil code of Quebec ran in this Province merely because we lived under the same flag and were British subjects. Those facts would make the Scotch and Irish subject to English law, and liable to suit anywhere in England. But though constituent members by representation of the Imperial Parliament these nationalities are preserved from undue inconvenience by statutes of that Parliament. Instances of this recognition of the rights of different provinces or kingdoms will be found in the following cases: McArthur v. Macdonnell, 3 Man. L. R. 9; Braun v. Davis, 9 Man. L. R. 534; Tottenham v. Barry, 12 Ch. D. 797; Hawkesford v. Giffard, 12 App. Cas. 122 (where an English judgment was treated as a foreign one in the Courts of the Channel Islands); Robey v. Snaefall Co., 20 Q. B. D. 152; New Zealand Loan Co. v. Morrison, [1898] A. C. 349 (in which it is stated that proceedings in an English Court are proceedings in a foreign Court so far as the Victorian Courts are concerned). See also Bateman v. Service, 6 App. Cas. 386, and Dominion Cotton Mills Co. v. General Engineering Co., [1902] A. C. 570.

THE LEX FORI.

If, therefore, the jurisdiction as between the several Provinces over their respective inhabitants is to be settled upon the principles of private international law, it will be easier to examine and come to a conclusion as to what Provincial laws apply to contracts which affect individuals or corporations resident or doing business in different Provinces, and