Stmuamz Couar or Pnnyjlewuia. tog plaintiff"sbeing in England, and having no attorney here: And t78’9. that while lic had an agent here, which was until 1778, the in- WYNJ tereli run, and only 3 1-2 years interefl: was iiruclt oH·` from the plaintiliis demand.* That in the prefent cafe Strrltlr was the attorney : That a tender or payment to him would have been good; and that fueh payment did not in any manner contravene the refolution of Cwg:-¢. That payment in bills of exchange would be lawful at any time, and could not in any manner aid the arms of the enemy. That this cafe was different from that of a bond: For the very land mortgaged, was the conlideration of the debt; and the defendants were al;} ually in the enjoyment of the profits of the land during the whole war. The defendant, in reply, contended that the war was a revocah tion of Shuttle'.: authority; and that which another cannot do by hinrfelf, he cannot do by attorney : That even his power to `fue during the war was gone. Br Tm: Cou1z·r:-Tlris afiion is brought on a mortgage for é`16,ooo, payable on 4thD¢¢¢mb¢•·, 1774. No fuit could be rought on the mortgage before the 4th December, 177;. Be- fore that period the_war commenced, and on the roth éqncmber, 177 5, the Congr¢ prohibited the exportation of commodities, Src. to Grml Britain, or any of her dominions. This was 0- bligatory on their coniiituents, and it became unlawful to make I any remittances after this to the enemy. D ating a war all civil aftions between enemies are fufpendcd; debts are fufpended alfo, but reliored by the peace. For the term of 7 r-2 years, viz. from the xoth_Sq>t:mber, 177;, to the roth March, 1783, the defendant could not have paid this money to the plaintili} _who was an alien enemy, without a violation of the pofitive laws of this country, and of the laws of nations. They ought not, -therefore, to fulfer for their moral condutl, and their fubmilliou to the laws. ` Intereit is paid forthe 1% or jbrbeurance of money. But in the cafe before us, there could be no forbearance; becaufe the `plaintilf could not enforce the payment of the principal; nor could the defendants pay him, conliltent with law; nor could they pay it without going into the enemy’s country, where the - plaintiff was. Where a perfon is prevented by law, from pay- ing the principal, he {hall not be compelled to pay intereli dur- ing the prohibition, as in the cafe of a Garnilhee, in a foreign attachment. It is urged, that a remittance in bills of exchange furnifhed the enemy with no money. Yet, it is clear, that it would fur· - nifh the enemy with the means of carrying on the war,within the bowclls
- BY rn!. Covwr :-There was no proof before the Court that he
was analicn enemy : lie had lived here many years, and want t• England before the war. .¢
�
