than the United States. This was held in the case of Corbett ". Nutt, reported in the 10th of Wallace.

"This case is much stronger than that of Fairfax's Devisee v Hunter's Lessee, reported in the 7th of Cranch, which received great consideration by this court. There a devise to an alien enemy resident in England, made during our Revolutionary war by a citizen of Virginia, and there residing at the time, was sustained, and held to vest a title in the devisee which was good until office found. .

"If an alien enemy can, by devise or purchase from a loyal citizen or subject, take an estate in the country of the other belligerent and hold it until office found, there would seem to be no solid reason for refusing a like efficacy to a conveyance from one enemy to another of land similarly situated. A different doctrine would unsettle a multitude of titles passed during the war between residents of the insurrectionary territory temporarily absent there from whilst it was dominated by the Federal forces.”

Conrad r. Waples (1877), 96 U. S. 279, 286–290.

W., a resident of Memphis, purchased, on April 12, 1865, in Mobile, from B., a resident of that city, both cities being then in the occupancy of the national forces, cotton which was then in the military lines of the insurgent forces in Alabama and Mississippi, the inhabitants whereof had been declared to be in insurrection. Between June 30 and December 1 of that year, a portion of the cotton, while it was in the hands of the planters from whom it had been originally purchased by the Confederate Government, the agent of which had sold it in Mobile to B. on the 5th of April, was seized by Treasury agents of the United States and sold. The proceeds were paid into the Treasury and W. sued to recover them. It was ruled that his purchase being in violation of law, no right arose there from which can be enforced against the United States.

Walker's Executors r. United States, 106 U'. S. 413.

A bill in equity was filed in a county court in the State of South Carolina to foreclose a mortgage made by McB. to H. of real estate in that State. Subsequently one of the parties to the suit obtained a removal of the cause to the circuit court of the United States for the district of South Carolina under the act of March 3, 1875. 18 Stat. 470. The apparent ground of the removal of the cause was that of a diversity in the citizenship of the parties, and, this diversity having been disproved, the circuit court made an order remanding the case to the State court. From this order an appeal was taken on the ground among others that when the mortgage was made H., the mortgagee, was a citizen of the State of New York, and McB.,

H. Poe, 551-vol 7 -17

the mortgagor, a citizen of the State of South Carolina whose people were then in rebellion against the United States, and consequently that the suit came within the act of 1865, for the purposes of removal, as a case arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States." The order of the circuit court was affirmed, the court saying:

66

"The fact that a mortgage was made in enemy territory to a loyal citizen of the United States does not necessarily imply unlawful intercourse between the parties contrary to the proclamation of the President of the date of August 16, 1861, 12 Stat. 1262, under the authority of the act of July 13, 1861, c. 3, § 5, 12 Stat. 257. That transactions within Confederate lines affecting loyal citizens outside were not all unlawful was decided in United States v. Quigley, 103 U. S. 595. To make a case for removal the answer should have set forth the facts which rendered the mortgage void under the nonintercourse act and the proclamation thereunder. There has been no attempt to do this." Carson v. Dunham (1887), 121 U. S. 421, 429.

Charles S. Morehead, a citizen of Kentucky, owned two plantations in Mississippi. In the spring of 1861, when the civil war began, he was on these plantations, but in the following May or June, when a long struggle seemed inevitable, he placed one in charge of his son and the other in charge of an overseer and returned to Kentucky. It did not appear that afterwards during the continuance of the war he had any communication with either of those persons. In April, 1862, being then in Kentucky, he sold to another citizen of the State, in payment of indebtedness, the cotton to be grown on the plantations during that year; but there was no agreement to transport and deliver it across the lines separating the insurrectionary States from those that adhered to the Union. The year's crop, however, or the greater part of it, was afterwards captured and sold by the United States forces and the proceeds paid over or accounted for to the Treasury.

"Though at the time the sale, or assignment, as it is termed in the act of Congress [June 4, 1888, 25 Stat. 1075, c. 348], was made ., the late civil war was flagrant, there was no rule of law arising from the existence of hostilities between the different sections of the country which in any respect impaired the validity of the transaction. [The court then quoted Conrad v. Waples, 96 U. S. 279, 286, supra.]

"The property in this case [Conrad v. Waples] was real estate, but we do not perceive how that fact would alter the validity of a transaction, if it could be affected by the character of the parties. If residents of the enemy's country may contract for property situated within it, there would seem to be no objection to similar transactions

by persons residing outside of the Confederate lines and adhering to the National Government, so long as no intercourse or connection is kept up with the inhabitants of the enemy's country. As stated in the case from which we have cited, it was commercial intercourse and correspondence between citizens of one belligerent and the other, and the engagement in traffic between them, leading to the transmission of money or property from one belligerent country to the other, which was forbidden.

There was, therefore, nothing in the sale of the cotton on the plantations or of cotton to be raised thereon, there being no agreement respecting its movement across the border of the contending sections, which brought the transaction within the prohibitions of any rule of international law or the proclamations of the President of the United States in 1861. (12 Stat. 257, 1262; 13 Stat. 731.)

Those who may desire to examine the decisions of the courts as to the nature and extent of the prohibitions upon transactions beeween subjects of countries at war, or between subjects of the same country respecting property situated in the enemy's country, will find in the opinion of the supreme judicial court of Massachusetts, in Kershaw . Kelsey, 100 Mass. 561, the subject ably and exhaustively considered, with an analysis of the most important decisions of the English and American courts."

Briggs r. United States (1892), 143 U. S. 346, 351, 353.

In April, 1862, during the civil war in the United States, Charles S. Morehead, a citizen of Kentucky, by a bill of sale sold to C. M. Briggs, a citizen of the same State, the cotton to be grown during that year on two plantations belonging to the former in Mississippi. It having been determined that the transaction was not invalid as a case of trading between enemies, the question arose whether the sale was sufficient to pass title to the cotton, existing or to be raised. The court said:

The delivery of the crops was not essential to pass the title as between Morehead and Briggs. The law on the subject of the sale of personal property does not require impossibilities, as would be a delivery in a case of that kind. The cotton was not at the time grown, and even if the sale be deemed incomplete until the actual appearance of the crop, it could not then be removed from the soil for delivery; besides, it was within the limits of a recognized enemy's country, and any attempt to transport it to the Union side for delivery would have been unlawful.

By the common law a sale of personal property is complete and the title passes as between vendor and vendee when the terms of transfer are agreed upon, without actual delivery.”

Briggs r. United States (1892), 143 U. S. 346, 354.

The act of July 17, 1862 (12 Stat. 589), to suppress insurrection and for other purposes, had no effect on sales or transfers of the estate and property of persons in rebellion after September 23, 1862, except as against the United States. As against that Government, the transfers of property liable to seizure were null and void, but they were not void as between private parties or against any other party than the United States.

Williams v. Paine (1897), 169 U. S. 55, 75.

It is within the power of a citizen within the United States lines to give to an enemy within the enemy's lines an evidence of debt. which shall be valid on the return of peace.

Hart v. United States, 15 Ct. Cl. 414.

In 1862, A, domiciled in Athens, Ala., agreed to sell B, of Nashville, Tenn., a plantation, with the personal property thereon, situated in Tennessee. At the time of the agreement of sale, Athens, Nashville, and the plantation were all within the lines of the military forces of the United States. At the time the deed was made Athens and the plantation were within the Confederate lines, as was the place of B's residence at the time. Held, that neither contract nor deed was invalid.

Brown v. Gardner, 4 Lea (Tenn.) 145.
See Ware v. Jones (1878), 61 Ala. 288.

A contract made in 1862 by a county court within the Confederate lines, and under the control of the government of Virginia at Richmond, is valid and binding on such county (now forming a part of the State of West Virginia), where such contract was made under the Virginia statute of May 9, 1862, authorizing counties to purchase salt to be disposed of to the people, and the salt was actually delivered.

Stuart, Buchanan & Co. v. County of Greenbrier, 16 W. Va. 95.

Contracts made by prisoners of war in the enemy's country for the purpose of obtaining subsistence are binding.

Crawford v. The William Penn, 3 Wash. C. C. 484.

(2) SUSPENSION OR DISSOLUTION OF CONTRACTS.

§ 1137.

The effect of war is to dissolve a partnership between citizens of

hostile nations.

The William Bagaley, 5 Wall. 377.

See, also, Griswold r. Waddington (1819), 16 Johns, 438.

As to exceptions, see Matthews r. MeStea (1875), 91 U. S. 7.

A transfer of property to a creditor by an enemy debtor, though made to an agent of the creditor and in payment of a debt contracted before the war, is void, and can not be made lawful by any ratification.

United States r. Grossmayer, 9 Wall. 72.

A sale of real estate during the rebellion, under a power in a deed of trust previously given to secure the payment of promissory notes of the grantors in the deed, is valid, though said grantors at the time. of the sale were citizens and residents of one of the States declared to be in insurrection.

University r. Finch, 18 Wall. 106.

In May, 1859, Lieutenant R., of the United States Army, who was then stationed at Carlisle Barracks, in Pennsylvania, and his wife, executed a power of attorney to the latter's brother to convey their interest in certain lands in the city of Washington, D. C. After the civil war broke out, R., who was a native of North Carolina, resigned his commission and entered the Confederate service. His wife accompanied him to the South. Her brother remained with the United States Army, of which he was an officer. During the war the lands were sold and a deed for them was given by him under the power of attorney. The purchase money was duly paid and the share of Mrs. R. was paid over to her while she was within the lines of the Southern army with her husband. Some years afterwards, after the death of R. and his wife, a bill was filed by their children to have the deed executed by Mrs. R.'s brother under the power of attorney declared null and void as a cloud upon the title of the complainants in the property. In support of this petition is was argued, among other things, that the power of attorney was revoked by the war which existed between the sections in which the principals and the agent, respectively, lived. It was held, however, that the war did not revoke the power of attorney. War did not, said the court, necessarily revoke every agency existing between inhabitants of the contending countries. Certain kinds of agencies were undoubtedly revoked by the breaking out of hostilities. It had been held that the agent of an insurance company came within the rule (Insurance Company . Davis, 95 U. S. 425, 429); and Mr. Justice Bradley, in delivering the opinion in that case, had said that, in order that the agency might subsist during the war, it must have the assent of the parties. This remark was made with reference to the case then before the court in which the agent of a New York company, who resided in Virginia, entered the Confederate service and thereafter refused to receive premiums, on the ground that he had no receipts from the company, and that the money, if received by him, would be confiscated by the Confederate government. A claim was