Sec 474

The general rule that no contracts with public enemies can be enforced, is applicable to all cases of belligerency; and hence, belligerent insurgents, when their belligerency is recognized by the parent state, are put in this respect in the category of public enemies.7 A fortiori is this the case with contracts to furnish goods to support a rebellion. Aside from the reason that such contracts are void as made with a public enemy, they are void as contributing to an indictable offence.8 A note, therefore, given in consideration of the payee acting as the payor's substitute in the Confederate army is void.1 - Contracts which involve the reception of Confederate money are void as giving credit to the Confederate treasury.2

Rule applicable to belligerent insurgents.

1 McConnell v. Hector, 3 B. & P. 113; Roberts v. Hardy, 3 M. & S. 533; and other cases cited supra, sec 94, 305, 319.

2 Willison v. Patteson, 7 Taunt. 449.

3 McBlair v. Gibbes, 17 How. 232.

4Hanauer v. Woodruff, 15 Wall. 439. 5 Supra, sec 352; Robinson v. Ins. Co.,.

42 N. Y. 54; Clements v. Yturria, 81 N. Y. 285; Pfeuffer v. Maltby, 54 Tex. 454.

6 Brooks v. Martin, 2 Wall. 70; Planters' Bank v. Union Bk., 16 Wall. 483; Lewis v. Alexander, 51 Tex. 590.

7 Dean v. Nelson, 10 Wall. 158; Hanauer v. Doane, 12 Wal. 342; Por-tis v. Green, 25 Ark. 376.

8 Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700; Hanauer v. Doane, 12 Wall. 342; Wait2-felder v. Kahnweiler, 56 Barb. 300; see White v. Hart, 13 Wall. 646; McKesson v. Jones, 66 N. C. 258; Cronly v. Hall, 67 N. C. 9; see Wh. Cr. L. 8th ed. sec 1901, where this topic is discussed in detail.

Sec 475

In England it is within the power of the crown to grant a valid license to trade with a public enemy. "The crown may exempt any persons and any branch of commerce, in its discretion, from the disabilities and forfeitures arising out of a state of war, and its license for such purpose ought to receive the most liberal construction."3 But a license to trade as subjects will not be construed as containing authority to trade as agents of a public enemy.4 The license is limited to its specific objects,5 nor can it be transferred to other parties.6

Sec 476

A contract between the citizens of two friendly states is suspended by a declaration of war between the two states, so that there can be no suit in either state unless by license of the state in which the suit is brought.7 But an order from the proper domestic authorities may reserve for specific periods and under certain conditions the right of suit.8 And when the contract is of a character that its suspension during war destroys its efficiency permanently, then it is vacated and dissolved by the war.9

License validates trade with enemy.

Contract suspended during hostilities.

1 Chancely v. Baily, 37 Ga. 532.

2 Martin v. Wallace, 40 Ga. 52.

3 Per cur. in Usparicha v. Noble, 13 East, 340; see Kensington v. Inglis, 8 East, 273; Patton v. Nicholson, 3 Wheat. 207; Crawford v. The William Penn, Peters C. C. 106.

4 Leake, 2d ed. 748; Mennett v. Bonham, 15 East, 477.

5 Keir v. Andrade, 6 Taunt. 498; Clark p. Ins. Co., 1 Story R. 128.

6 Ibid.

7 Abbott on Ship., 9th ed. 485; O'Mealey v. Wilson, 1 Camp. 482; Reid v. Hoskins, 4 E. & B. 979; 6 E. & B. 953; McConnell v. Hector, 3 B. & P. 113; Boussmaker ex parte, 13 Ves. 71;.

Esposito v. Bowden, 7 E. & B. 763; Johnson v. Falconer, 2 Paine, 639; Crawford v. The William Penn, 3 Wash. C. C. 484; Stiles v. Easley, 51 111. 275; Seymour v. Bailey, 66 111. 288. As to alien enemies, see supra, sec 94. As to effect of embargo, see supra, sec 305. As to effect of temporary necessity, see supra, sec 321.

8 Clementson v. Blessig, 11 Ex. 135; Matthews v. McStea, 91 U. S. 7. The effect of war on a policy of life insurance is discussed in N. Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Statham, 93 U. S. 24, and other cases cited Wald's Pollock, 282.

9 Esposito v. Bowden, 7 E. & B. 763; Geipel v. Smith, L. R. 7 Q..B. 404.