Trading with the enemy in time of war is illegal; since "the object of war is as much to cripple the enemy's commerce as to capture his property." l Therefore, "During a state of hostility the citizens of the hostile states are incapable of contracting with one another,2 and this is true whether the attempted contracts are "made directly by one in person, or indirectly through an agent who is neutral." 3 Contracts and sales in an enemy's country between persons there domiciled, however, are not illegal.4 And citizens of a loyal State may sell 1 Espoeito v. Bowden, 7 E. & B. 763. In Kershaw v. Kelsey, 100 Mass. 561. 572, 573, 1 Am. Rep. 142, 97 Am. Dec, 124, the court said: "The law of nations, as judicially declared, prohibits all intercourse between citizens of the two belligerents which is inconsistent with the state of war between their countries; and this includes any act of voluntary submission to the enemy, or receiving his protection, as well as any act or contract which tends to increase his resources; and every kind of trading or commercial dealing or intercourse, whether by transmission of money or goods, or orders, for the delivery of either, between the two countries, whether directly or indirectly, or through the intervention of third persons or partnerships, or by insurances upon trade with or by the enemy.71 See also Scholefield v. Eichelberger, 7 Pet. 586, 8 L. Ed. 793; Coppell v. Hall, 7 Wall. 542, 554, 19 L. Ed. 244; United States v. Quigley, 103 U. S. 595, 26 L. Ed. 524; Carson v. Dunham, 121 U. S. 421, 7 S. Ct. 1030, 30 L. Ed. 992; The Rapid, 8 Cranch, 155, 3 L. Ed. 520; Philips v. Hatch, 1 Dill. 571; Habricht v. Alexander's Exrs., 1 Woods, 413; Perkins v. Rogers, 35 Ind. 124, 9 Am. Rep. 639; Hill v. Baker, 32 Iowa, 302, 7 Am. Rep. 193; Hennen v. Gilman, 20 La. Ann. 241, 96 Am. Dec. 396; Shacklett v. Polk, 51 Miss. 378, 391; Rhodes v. Summerhill, 4 Heisk. 204, 1 Kent, Comm. * 66. The particular contracts, however, relating to real estate, in Kershaw v. Kelsey, 100 Mass. 561, 1 Am. Rep. 142,97 Am. Dec. 124, and Brown r. Gardner, 4 Lea, 145, were held to be lawful. See also Williams v. Paine, 169 U. S. 55, 72, 42 L. Ed. 658, 18 S. Ct. 279.
2Scholefield v. Eichelberger, 7 Pet. 586, 593, 8 L. Ed. 793; Hanger v. Abbott, 6 Wall. 532, 535, 18 L. Ed. 939.
' United States v. Lapene, 17 Wall. 601, 602, 21 L. Ed. 693.
4 In Conrad v. Waples, 96 U. S. 279, 286, 24 L. Ed. 721, the court said: "The character of the parties as rebels or enemies did not deprive them of the right to contract with and to sell to each other. As between themselves, to one another goods which are situated in the enemy's country, provided no agreement is made for the transportation or delivery of the goods from the enemy's country.5 During the war with Germany, England and subsequently the United States passed "Trading with the Enemy Acts," defining permissible intercourse with alien enemies, providing for the seizure of property belonging to them, suspending the Statute of Limitations, etc.6