As in cases which involve the validity of contracts between alien enemies and citizens of the state in whose courts it is sought to enforce the contract,1 the question of the right of an alien to maintain an action depends on his domicile, rather than upon his nationality.2 In the case of natural persons, the personal or business domicile controls.3 At common law a resident alien enemy may maintain an action,4 at least if he has a license, either express or implied, from the government to remain in the country, and he may assert such right unless it is taken away from him by legislation or by lawful executive proclamation. If he is remaining in the country without a license, express or implied, he can not maintain an action.5 In the case of corporations, the country in which the corporation is formed prima facie controls,6 but the question of the control of the corporation may be considered, and if it is shown that a domestic corporation is. really controlled by alien enemies, it may apparently itself be treated as an alien enemy.7 The fact that a company incorporated in England has done business in Germany through a local agent, is held not to make it an alien enemy in England,8 so as to prevent it from prosecuting an action against a German to enforce a judgment for causes which had been rendered by a German court before the outbreak of the war, in an action which had been brought in the German courts by such defendant against such plaintiff.9 A corporation which was incorporated in England, which was controlled by English directors and officers, and the majority of whose stock was held by English subjects, was treated as English for the purpose of permitting it to bring an action in the English courts during the war, although much of the stock was held by nonresident alien enemies.10 A corporation formed under the laws of one of the states of the Union the majority of whose directors are domiciled in the United States, and whose managing officer is domiciled in the United States, has been regarded as a citizen for the purpose of litigation during the war, although the majority of the stock is owned by nonresident alien enemies.11 A citizen of the United States, who was also a citizen of a state which adhered to the Union, but was actually present in a state which adhered to the Confederacy, could maintain an action in the courts of the latter state against a resident debtor.12 An additional reason for permitting a resident alien minor to bring an action is the fact that the profits of the fund will be under the control of his guardian, and that the court can prevent the removal of such fund from the country.13

8 Bank v Matthews, 40 N. Y. 12.

9The William Bagaley, 72 U. S. (5 Wall.) 377, 18 L. ed. 5S3.

10 Matthews v. McStea, 91 U. S. 7, 23 L. ed. 188; McStea v. Matthews, 50 N. Y. 166.

11 Matthews v. McStea, 01 U. S. 7, 23 L. ed. 188; McStea v Matthews, 50 N. Y. 100.

12 Hubbard v. Matthews, 54 N. Y. 43, 13 Am Rep. 502.

1 See Sec. 2727 and 2732. On this subject generally, see Alien Enemy Litigants, by Arnold McNair,

31 Law Quarterly Review, 154; 34 Law Quarterly Review, 134.

See also, Treatment of Enemy Aliens, by Amos S. Hershey, 12 American Journal of International Law, 150; Treatment of Enemy Aliens, by James W. Garner, 12 American Journal of International Law, 27.

2 Daimler Co. v. Continental Tyre and Rubber Co. [1916]. 2 A. C. 307; Heiler v. Goodman's Motor Express, Van & Storage Co, 02 N. J. L. 415, 3 A. L. R. 336, 105 Atl. 233.

3 Heiler v. Goodman's Motor Express, Van ft Storage Co., 92 N. J. L. 415, 3 A. L. R. 336, 105 Atl. 233.

4 England. Wells v. Williams, 1 Ld. Raym. 282; Thurn and Taxis (Princess of) v. Moffitt [19151,] 1 Ch. 58; Schaf-fenuis v. Goldberg [1916], 1 K. B. 284.

United States. The Oropa, 255 Fed. 132.

Kansas. Wolf v. Cudahy Packing Co., - Kan. - , 182 Pac. 395 (not an "alien enemy" within the Trading with the Enemy Act, since resident of the United States).

Michigan. Mittelstadt v. Kelly, 202 Mich. 524, 168 N. W. 601.

New Jersey. Posselt v. D'Espard, 87 N. J Eq. 571, 100 Atl. 893; Heiler v. Goodman's Motor Express, Van & Storage Co, 92 N. J. L 415, 3 A. L. R. 336, 105 Atl. 233.

Hew York. Fritz Schultz, Jr., Co. v. Raimes, 164 N. Y. Supp. 454, 99 Misc.

(J26 [affirmed, Fritz Schultz, Jr., Co. v. Raimes, 166 N. Y Supp. 567, 100 Misc. 697]; Arndt-Ober v. Metropolitan Opera Co., 169 N. Y. Supp. 304, 102 Misc. 320 [affirmed, 182 App. Div. 513, 169 N. Y. Supp. 944].

North Carolina. Krachanake v. Acme Manufacturing Co., 175 N. Car. 435, L. R. A. 1918E, 801, 95 S. E. 851.

Pennsylvania. Russell v. Skipwith, 6 Binn. (Pa. ) 241.

Washington. Constanti v. Darwin, - Wash. - , L. R. A. 1918F, 1012, 173 Pac. 29.

5Alcinous v. Nigreu, 4 El. ft El. 217.

6 Daimler Co. v. Continental Tyre and Rubber Co. [1916], 2 A. C. 307 (decided by a divided court).

7 Daimler Co. v. Continental Tyre and Rubber Co. [1916], 2 A. C. 307.

8 In re Hilckes [1917], 1 K. B. 48.

9 In re Hilckes [1917], 1 K. B. 48.

During the war between the United States and Germany, resident alien enemies were allowed to maintain actions in the courts of this country.14 The presidential proclamation was construed as permitting resident alien enemies to prosecute actions in the courts of this country.15

10In re Hilckes [1917], 1 K. B. 48.

11 Fritz Schultz, Jr., Co. v. Raimes, 164 N. Y. Supp. 454, 00 Misc. 626 [affirmed,' Fritz Schultz, Jr., Co. v. Raimes, 166 N. Y. Supp. 567, 100 Misc. 6071.

12Bishop v. Jones, 28 Tex. 204.

"It may be instated that, as the beneficiaries in this suit are alleged to have been resident citizens of the United States, it is to be presumed they were not at that time in the Confederacy, and therefore they are not protected by the proclamation, which applied only to such persons as were within its jurisdiction. To this it is sufficient to say that the parties by whom the suit is brought were here. They did not come in violation of belligerent obligations into the country after the commencement of war The reason why a suit can not be sustained by a citizen for the benefit of an alien enemy is to prevent fraud upon the court, because what can not be done directly should not be permitted indirectly. If, then, the principal might have recovered the property to which he was entitled by quit in his own name, for the purpose of removing it from the country, we see no reason why this could not be done by his agent." Bishop v. Jones, 28 Tex. 204.

13 Krachanake v. Acme Mfg. Co., 175 N. Car. 435, L. R. A. 1018E, 801, 95 S. E. 851.

14 United States. The Oropa, 255 Fed. 132.

Arizona. Superior & Pittsburg Copper Co. v. Davidovitch, 10 Ariz. 402, 171 Pac. 127.

Kansas. Wolf v. Cudahy Packing Co., - Kan. - , 182 Pac. 305.

Michigan. Mittelstadt v. Kelly, 202 Mich 524, 168 N. W. 501.

New Jersey. Posselt v. D'Espard, 87 N. J. Eq. 571, 100 Atl. 893; Heiler v. Goodman's Motor Express, Van & Storage Co., 02 N. J. L. 415, 3.A.LR. 336, 105 Atl. 233.

North Carolina. Krachanake v. Acme Mfg. Co., 175 N. Car. 435, L. R. A. 1918E, 801, 05 S. E. 851.

Washington. Washington v. Darwin, - Wash. - , L. R. A. 1918F, 1012, 173 Pac. 29.