rule is that, if a loss has taken place before the commencement of hostilities, the right of action on a policy of insurance by which the goods lost were insured is suspended during the continuance of war and revives on the restoration of peace."

Lord Brampton said: "The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the laws of the South African Republic for the purpose of working gold mines therein. The majority of its share holders are subjects of the United Kingdom. The company has an office and a committee of management in England, and it was a custom of the company to transmit to this country gold bullion for sale and distribution of the profits amongst its shareholders. The company clearly must be treated as a subject of the Republic, notwithstanding the nationality of its shareholders."

Lord Lindley said: "Before considering the legality or illegality of the policy, it is desirable to consider the legal position of the company assured by it. The company was incorporated and registered according to the laws of the Transvaal, and it carried on business there. It had gold mines there and extracted gold from them, and sent such gold to England or Europe for sale and division of profits amongst its shareholders. It had also a London office and London committee of management. For all purposes material for the determination of the present appeal the company must, in my opinion, be regarded as a company resident and carrying on business in the Transvaal although not exclusively there. It was subject to the laws of that country. When war broke out the company became an alien enemy of this country: see the American case of Society for the Propagation of the Gospel v. Wheeler. (1) If it becomes material to attribute nationality to the company it would, in my opinion, be correct to say that the company was a Transvaal Company and a subject of the Transvaal Government, although almost all its shareholders were foreigners resident elsewhere and subjects of other countries. But when considering questions arising with an alien enemy, it is not the nationality of a person, but his place of business during war that is important. An Englishman carrying on business in an enemy's country is treated as an alien enemy in considering the validity or invalidity of his commercial contracts: McConnell v. Hector. Again, the subject of a State at war with this country, but who is carrying on business here or in a foreign neutral country, is not treated as an alien enemy; the validity of his contracts does not depend on his nationality, nor even on what is his real domicil, but on the place or places in which he carries on his business or businesses: Wells v. Williams. As observed by Sir William Scott in the

13 B. & P. 113; 6 R. R. 724.

22 Gallison, 105. (9 W. 3) 1 Ld. Raym. 282; 1 Salk. 110678-199

Yonge Klassina,1'a man may have mercantile concerns in two countries, and if he acts as a merchant of both he must be liable to be considered as a subject of both with regard to the transactions originating, respectively, in those countries. That he has no fixed countinghouse in the enemy's country will not be decisive.""

See also The Portland, 3 C. Rob. 41.

De Beers Consolidated Mines, Limited, v. Howe, A. C. 455, 458.— Lord Loreburn said: "I cannot adopt Mr. Cohen's contention. In applying the conception of residence to a company, we ought, I think, to proceed as nearly as we can upon the analogy of an individual. A company cannot eat or sleep, but it can keep house and do business. We ought, therefore, to see where it really keeps house and does business. An individual may be of foreign nationality, and yet reside in the United Kingdom. So may a company. Otherwise it might have its chief seat of management and its centre of trading in England under the protection of English law, and yet escape the appropriate taxation by the simple expedient of being registered abroad and distributing its dividends abroad. The decision of Kelly C. B. and Huddleston B. in the Calcutta Jute Mills v. Nicholson and the Cesena Sulphur Co. v. Nicholson now thirty years ago involved the principle that a company resides for purposes of income tax where its real business is carried on. Those decisions have been acted upon ever since. I regard that as the true rule, and the real business is carried on where the central management and control actually abides."

[For citations relative to the Nationality of Corporations later in date than August 1, 1914, see the Appendix to this volume.]

1 (1804) 5 C. Rob. 302-3.

ENEMY PERSONS IN BELLIGERENT TERRITORY.

The citizens and subjects of all other occupations [than merchants] who may be established in the territories or dominions of the United States, and of the Empire of Brazil, shall be respected and maintained in the full enjoyment of their personal liberty and property, unless their particular conduct shall cause them to forfeit this protection, which, in consideration of humanity, the contracting parties engage to give them.

Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation of 1828, between the
United States and Brazil, Article XXV.

And if a war shall break out between the parties, nine months shall be granted to all the subjects of both parties to dispose of their effects and retire with their property. And it is further declared that whatever indulgence, in trade or otherwise, shall be granted to any of the Christian Powers, the citizens of the United States shall be equally entitled to them.

Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1836 between the United States and Morocco, Article XXIV.

The citizens of all other occupations [than merchants] who may be established in the territories or dominions of the United States or of New Granada, shall be respected and maintained in the full enjoyment of their personal liberty and property, unless their particular conduct shall cause them to forfeit this protection, which, in consideration of humanity, the contracting parties engage to give them.

Treaty of Peace, Amity, Navigation, and Commerce of 1846 between the United States and Colombia, Article XXVII.

Upon the entrance of the armies of either nation into the territories of the other, women and children, ecclesiastics, scholars of every faculty, cultivators of the earth, merchants, artisans, manufacturers, and fishermen, unarmed and inhabiting unfortified towns, villages, or places, and in general all persons whose occupations are for the common subsistence and benefit of mankind, shall be allowed to continue their respective employments, unmolested in their persons.

Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Limits and Settlement of 1848 between the United States and Mexico, Article XXII.

*

and even in the event of a rupture, all such citizens of either of the two high contracting parties who are established in any of the territories of the other, in the exercise of any trade or special employment, shall have the privilege of remaining and of continuing such trade and employment therein without any manner of interruption, in the full enjoyment of their liberty and property, as long as they behave peaceably, and commit no offense against the laws; and their goods and effects, of whatever description they may be, whether in their own custody or intrusted to individuals or to the State, shall not be liable to seizure or sequestration, nor to any other charges or demands than those which may be made upon the like effects or property belonging to the native citizens of the country in which such citizens may reside. In the same case, debts between individuals, property in public funds, and shares of companies, shall never be confiscated, sequestered nor detained.

Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation of 1851 between the
United States and Costa Rica, Article XI.

The citizens of all other occupations [than merchants], who may be established in the territories of the United States and the Republic of Bolivia, shall be respected and maintained in the full enjoyment of their personal liberty and property, unless their particular conduct shall cause them to forfeit this protection, which, in consideration of humanity, the contracting parties engage to give them.

Treaty of Peace, Friendship. Commerce, and Navigation of 1858 between the United States and Bolivia, Article XXVIII.

And even in the event of a rupture, all such citizens of either of the two high contracting parties who are established in any of the territories of the other, in the exercise of any trade or special employment, shall have the privilege of remaining, and of continuing such trade and employment therein without any manner of interruption, in the full enjoyment of their liberty and property as long as they behave peaceably, and commit no offense against the laws; and their goods and effects, of whatever description they may be, whether in their own custody or intrusted to individuals or to the State, shall not be liable to seizure or sequestration, nor to any other charges or demands than those which may be made upon the like effects or property belonging to the native citizens of the country in which such citizens may reside.

Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation of 1864 between the United States and Honduras, Article XI.

And [if war shall break out between the two contracting parties] all women and children, scholars of every faculty, cultivators of the

earth, artisans, mechanics, manufacturers, and fishermen, unarmed and inhabiting the unfortified towns, villages, or places, and, in general, all others whose occupations are for the common subsistence and benefit of mankind, shall be allowed to continue their respective employments, and shall not be molested in their persons.

Treaty of Commerce and Navigation of 1871 between the United
States and Italy, Article XXI.

[For the treaty provisions between the United States and other Powers respecting the treatment of merchants and their property in the event of war between the contracting parties, see the citations, Supra, under the heading "Enemy property in belligerent territory."]

Entrance of aliens.

ARTICLE 8. In time of war, internal dissension, or epidemic, the State shall have the right of temporarily restricting or prohibiting the entrance of aliens.

Institute (1892), p. 105.

Expulsion of aliens.

ARTICLE 2. Except in cases of extreme necessity, such as war or serious disturbances, a distinction should be made between ordinary expulsion, applying to specific individuals, and extraordinary expulsion, applying to classes of individuals.

ARTICLE 3. Expulsion under pressure of necessity shall be only temporary. It shall not exceed the duration of the war or a period determined upon in advance, at the expiration of which it may be at once converted into ordinary or extraordinary expulsion.

ARTICLE 4. Extraordinary expulsion shall be accomplished by a special law or at least by an ordinance previously promulgated. The general ordinance, before being carried out, should be made public a reasonable time beforehand.

ARTICLE 5. In ordinary expulsion, those individuals who are residents or who have a commercial establishment must, from the standpoint of guaranties, be distinguished from those who have neither.

ARTICLE 6. A decision decreeing ordinary expulsion and stating the provisions on which it is based must be made known to the party interested before being put into execution.

Institute (1888) pp. 89, 90.

Various kinds of expulsion.

ARTICLE 24. Temporary extraordinary (or en masse) expulsion applies to classes of individuals, as the result of war or serious disturbances arising in the country; it is effective only during the war or for a fixed period.