residents of this country, nor did the proclamation of the President of April 6, 1917, preclude an alien enemy from suing, if a resident of his country, since no act of Congress bears upon the subject of the confiscation of debts or suspension of remedies; and, under the treaty with Germany of 1799 and 1828 (for Treaty, see Addenda S) a subject of Germany can sue to collect a debt contracted during peace, though war has been declared. Id.

23. Alien Insurance Company. Liquidating Under License of the President May Sue in Civil Courts, But Prosecution Will Be Stayed, if Funds Collected Are to Be Placed in Its Hands.

Where an alien insurance company was liquidating under a license granted by the President, its right to sue in civil courts to collect premium balances is not narrowed to new transactions arising from the beginning of liquidation until its end, but, if the business, carried on under license is in liquidation and a suit be necessary in connection with such liquidation to bring in the assets of the alien corporation, which arose out of the transactions prior to the issuance of the license, such suit may be said to arise "solely out of the business transacted within the United States" under such license and be maintained as provided by Section 7, sub-section (b). But the prosecution of an action by an alien enemy (German) corporation, if the proceeds are to be placed in its hands and within the potential control of the German Empire, or other enemy country, will be stayed; but, in such a case, the Alien Property Custodian may take over and continue the prosecution of the action.

Nord Deutsche Ins. Co. vs. Dudley, Jr., Co., 104 Misc. Rep. 365, 172, N. Y. Supp. 154; also, same titled case, 169 N. Y. Supp. 303, affirmed in 169 N. Y. Supp. 1106.

The court in the case, supra, said:

"The sections of the act governing the issuance of licenses and the powers of an alien enemy corporation to operate in pursuance thereof provide that an enemy insurance company doing business within the United States may apply to the President for a license to continue to do business, and the

license, if granted, may contain such provisions and conditions. regulating the business and the control and disposition of the funds of the company as the President shall deem necessary for the safety of the United States. Section 4, subd. "a". In Section 7, however, this authority is limited by the words:

'Nothing in this act shall be deemed to authorize the prosecution of any suit or action at law or in equity in any court within the United States by an enemy or ally of enemy prior to the end of the war, except as provided in Section ten hereof: Provided, however, that an enemy or ally of enemy licensed to do business under this act may prosecute and maintain any such suit or action so far as the same arises solely out of business transacted within the United States under such license.' Section 7, subd. 'b'.

"It is conceded that Section 10 does not here apply, and the determination of this motion rests upon the construction to be given the phrase "an action arising solely out of the business transacted within the United States under such license," as it affects the suit here pending. The Alien Property Custodian submits an affidavit on this motion in which he asserts that he considers it for the best interests of the United States to have all alien enemy insurance companies liquidated and their business here wound up, in order that American policy-holders having losses may not be compelled to sue for each loss sustained. ****

"The only other possible construction is that suits may be brought for such business transactions as arise from the time liquidation begins until its end, or the revocation of the license, which would narrow the scope of the Commission to an exceedingly small compass, since it is not likely that anything in the nature of new transactions will arise in the course of liquidation, excepting possibly the securing of offices, the employment of help, and contracts for services generally aiding the subject of liquidation itself."

"This should not be deemed by a Court to be the sole business contemplated as being permitted under a license allowing prosecution and maintenance of suits, unless the con

struction is forced by unequivocal words. Especially should the Court lean toward a construction given to the provision by the administrative officer in charge of the execution of the provisions of the act, and I do not hesitate to adopt the view as my own judgment of the Alien Property Custodian, as set forth in his affidavit that the prosecution and maintenance of suits, so far as the same may arise solely out of the business transacted within the United States under such license, should be construed as permitting the Alien Property Custodian to allow an enemy alien corporation in liquidation to go forward with its actions designed to bring in assets growing out of its business transacted within the United States, prior to the issuance of the license." Nord Deutsche Ins. Co. vs. Dudley, Jr., .Co., 172 NYS. 154, 104 Misc. Rep. 365.

24. Alien Enemy-Action by. Cannot Be Continued During War and Proceeds of Any Judgment Obtained Turned Over to Alien Property Custodian.

So held in Held vs. Goldsmith (Sup. Ct. La.) 96, So. Rep. 272.

25. Alien German Insurance Pledgor of Marine Insurance May Be Sued by American Pledgee, When.

In an action by American pledges of certificates of marine insurance issued by a British insurance company, the insured goods, belonging to a German pledgor, having been captured by the British in the war against Germany, the contention that the action could not be maintained, because the pledgee would recover full amount of the insurance certificates and the excess of the amount due the pledgee, would be recovered on behalf of the German pledgor, is untenable and states no defense, as any aid and comfort to the enemy from such recovery could be prevented by exercise of the Alien Property's right to take over the proceeds of the recovery until a declaration of peace.

Giunness et. al., V. Phoenix Ins. Co., Ltd., of London, 188, N. Y. S. 137, 196 App. Div. 495.

26. Alien Enemy. Right of Action Under Workmen's Compensation Act.

A citizen of Germany, who came to this country in 1885 and then took out his first naturalization papers, which were subsequently destroyed by fire, who, previous to and at the time of the declaration of war with Germany was working for one of the packing house companies of Kansas City, and who immediately after that declaration, was, by the federal authorities, given a permit to reside in the packing house district and to work for the packing house, is not declared to be "an alien enemy" by the act of Congress of October 6, 1917 (Chapter 106, 2, 40 Stat. 411) and is entitled to prosecute an action under the Workmen's Compensation Act of this State. Wolf vs. Cudahy Packing Co. (Kansas) 182 Pac. 395.

Not lost under Arizona statute by change of alien enemy status.

An injured person does not lose his capacity to sue under the employers' liability law (Arizona) by reason of a probable change in his status from alien friend to alien enemy taking place since the employers' appeal was perfected.

Superior & Pittsburg Copper Co. vs. Davidowitch, 19 Ariz. 402, 171 Pac. 127.

Trust created to effect compromise in Germany not void, but suspended.

Where plaintiff delivered money to defendants to carry out compromises with plaintiff's creditors, if made and confirmed by a German bankruptcy court, and the proposed compromise was rejected, plaintiff continuing negotiations looking to a compromise, the existence of a state of war with Germany did not cancel the trust, but only suspended it.

Vorhaus vs. City Nat. Securities Co., 167 N. Y. S. 736.

27. Alien Enemy. Licensed to Do Business May Prosecute Action Arising Out of Business Transacted in the United States.

The right of an enemy or ally of an enemy, licensed to do business in this country, to prosecute and maintain suits or actions so far as the same arises solely out of the business transacted within the United States, is recognized in an Act

to define, regulating and punishing trading with the enemy and for other purposes, approved October 1917.

In suit for infringement of patent against a German Co., operating a united telegraph station taken over by the Government during the war, the defendant is entitled to time to answer until after the cessation of hostilities and the reopening of communications between the United States and Germany and it would be improper to force filing of an answer or subsequent trial, when the company is in no position to defend for either.

Kintner, et. al., vs. Hoch-Fregnenz-Maschinen, A. G. Fur Draht-Lose Telegraph Co., et. al., 256 F. 849.

To same effect: Harland and Wolff, Ltd., vs. S. S. Kaiser Wm. II, 246 F. 786, 159 C. C. A. 88.

28. Judicial Notice of the Existence of War Taken by Courts. Sections 7 and 10 Do Not Remove Disability of Enemy Alien to Sue in Civil Courts.

"The Court will take judicial knowledge of the fact that at the time this judgment was rendered war existed between the United States and Austro-Hungary. The inhibition against the maintenance by an alien enemy of a suit in our courts is not found in any express provision of the act of Congress referred to in the assignment; but it is a wellsettled rule of law of nations that the existence of war prevents a citizen of one of the belligerents from prosecuting a suit against a citizen of the other in the courts of the country of the defendant. Watt vs. Unione Austriaca di Navigazione (D. C.) 224 Fed. 188. The rule is based upon the obvious ground that it is contrary to public policy for the courts of a belligerent country to render any assistance to an alien enemy to enforce claims or recover property from a citizen of such belligerent. To permit suits to be prosecuted by alien enemies against a citizen for the recovery of money or property would be injurious to the government, in that it tends to increase the resources of the enemy country, and to that extent give aid and assistance to the enemy.

We do not think it can be doubted that this rule applies