IN THE COURTS OF THE NATIONS - DataSpace - Princeton ...

Jews tried to ensure a fortuitous outcome in court by bringing their cases to the forum they
thought would prove most favorable.
Real Estate Disputes
Jews with foreign protection were particularly likely to find themselves subject to the
jurisdiction of sharī‘a courts when they became involved in disputes concerning real estate.
After the Conference of Madrid in 1880, all cases involving the rent or sale of real estate in
Morocco fell under the jurisdiction of sharī‘a courts. 81 Despite this requirement, Jews made
efforts either to ensure that their case was heard in the sharī‘a court or to obtain an exception to
the sharī‘a’s jurisdiction. These strategies demonstrate how Jewish protégés advocated for
particular legal forums based on what they perceived to be most advantageous to their cause.
Many Jewish protégés were clearly eager to appear before a qāḍī to settle their real estate
disputes. 82 In 1891 Sol Azancot, a Jew with French protection, sued Avraham Elazar, a Jew with
Brazilian protection, concerning a disagreement about their adjacent properties. 83 Azancot
81 Concerning the legal disputes of foreign subjects and protégés involving real estate before 1880, which were
sometimes judged by a qāḍī and sometimes by a Makhzan official, see, e.g., FO, 631/3, Elton to Hay, 28 September
1864 and Carstensen to Hay, 8 April 1865; MAE Nantes, Tanger A 157, Paul Lambert v. Joshua Toledano, 1870.
Despite the clause in the Treaty of Madrid, there were real estate cases after 1880 which were not submitted to the
sharī‘a courts, though it is not clear why. For instance, the case of Benchimol v. Abraham and Saul Azancot (MAE
Nantes, Tanger B 461, 1903-5) was judged by a beit din, despite the fact that the case involved ḥubs properties and
legal proof in Arabic (see Pasha of Tangier to Saint René Taillandier, 27 August 1903). Another case concerning a
complaint about destroyed property was judged in the American consular court (USNA, Reg. 84, v. 289, Hadj
Thamy Ben Taib Hadddawe v. Bertram Israel Darmond, August 1910). Yet a third case, involving disputed
ownership of a house, was judged by the French consular court (MAE Nantes, Tanger F 5, Joseph Kanouï v. de
Maindreville et Buzenet, no date (after 1911)).
82 See, e.g., FO, 831/8, Protest of William Henry Chambers Andrews on behalf of Moses Corcos, 20 March 1900.
In this instance, Chambers, a British subject, protested against Avraham Sebasi, a Spanish “subject or protégé,” for
attempting to build a building that would obstruct the light into Corcos’ property. Chambers requested that the
matter be judged by a sharī‘a court, “as is usual in such cases.” See also MAE Nantes, Tanger F 2, Schott v. Cohen,
8 October 1894. Ferdinand Schott, a British subject, claimed that he was the rightful owner of a building inhabited
by Avraham Ḥaim Kohen, a French subject. He noted that sharī‘a was the only law with the right to rule in this
case, and also that the sharī‘a court had already ruled in his favor—little wonder, then, that he wanted the sharī‘a’s
ruling to stand!
83 MAE Nantes Tanger B 1325, Dossier Azancot contre Elazar, 1891-1892.
313