Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Ng Chi Kin v. Wilkinson and the China Land and Finance Co. Ltd, 1891

[injunction]

Ng Chi Kin v. Wilkinson and the China Land and Finance Co. Ltd

Supreme Court for China and Japan
Hannen CJ, 18 November 1891
Source: North China Herald, 20 November, 1891

LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.
Shanghai, 18th November, 1891
Before Chief Justice Hannen
NG CHI-KIN AND OTHERS v. WILKINSON AND THE CHINA LAND AND FINANCE CO., LTD.
  This was a motion on behalf of the plaintiffs, Ng Chi-kin, and Ng Chun-man, for an interim injunction to restrain the defendant Hiram Shaw Wilkinson "from parting with either to the defendant company or to any one on its behalf or any person or persons whatever the title deeds of the properties comprising the lots registered in the names of the defendant Company on the Register at the British Consulate as lots number  14, 14A, 14B and 95 and the lots registered in the name of the defendant company on the Register at the United States Consulate as lots numbered 22A, 2B 1271` and 37 or any of them, or any of the deeds, documents or writings relating to or in any way connected with the title to the said properties or any of them, and from doing any act for the purpose of vesting the said titles  to the  said properties or any of them in the said company or any person or persons whatever and from paying away or parting with or dealing with all or any of the moneys or securities which may now be or which may hereafter come into his possession in respect of the said properties or any of them pending the hearing of this suit; and for an order restraining the defendant company from conveying, transferring, assigning, selling, mortgaging or otherwise dealing with the said properties or any of them and from  paying away or parting with or dealing with all or any moneys or other securities which may now be or which hereafter may come into the possession of the said defendant company in respect of the rents or profits accruing from the said properties or any part thereof pending the hearing of this suit; and for the appointment of a  Receiver of the rents and profits of the said properties pending the hearing of this suit."
  Mr. W. V. Drummond, barrister, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. R. E. Wainewright, solicitor, for the defendants.
  Before the circumstances of the case were goner into, Mr. Wainewright raised an objection to the effect that the plaintiffs, who are Chinese subjects, had not signed the form of submission to the Court's jurisdiction required by the Order in Council.
  Mr. Drummond urged that it had always been the practice in that Court to allow suits to be brought without any submission being filed. He thought that would be proved on reference to the files of the Court; but of course that would not override the Order in Council. The objection was a purely technical one, and if the court thought it should be complied with to some extent, he would ask that the motion be adjourned to enable him to file the necessary submission as attorney for the various plaintiffs. He thought, however, it would be quite sufficient if he showed that the powers of attorney which he held were proper ones.
   Mr. Wainewright said that all he had to observe was that the two Orders in Council taken together were clear and intelligible, and he took it the court would not disregard them. It was not a mere idle form. The court was asked to give an injunction by people whom they knew nothing whatever about, except what was stated in the pleadings. He thought that before his clients were put to any more expense they were entitled to see that the plaintiffs had complied strictly with all the formalities required.
   Mr. Drummond said he could, if his Lordship wished, send for the powers pf attorney.
  His Lordship said he was afraid he was not in a position to do that. It would amount to his giving advice as to what he thought would satisfy the requirements of the Order In Council, and he could not do that. When the plaintiffs filed a proper submission it would be for the other side to argue whether it was sufficient or not. All he could do with the present motion was to dismiss it.
  Mr. Drummond - I think I am entitled to ask your Lordship to adjourn it.
  His Lordship - I do not see how you can do that. An objection is taken; I think it is a good objection, and therefore there is nothing  to be done but to dismiss the motion; and I do not see why it should not be with costs.
  Mr. Drummond - I will not press your Lordship. It can be renewed at any time.
  His Lordship - Yes, it can be renewed.

Published by Centre for Comparative Law, History and Governance at Macquarie Law School