skill, labours, and enterprize, of all the partners in the common business thereof, can no longer be attained.  The conclusion therefore, would seem to be absolutely that this mutual supervening capacity, must, upon the very principles applied to all analagous cases, amount to a positive dissolution of the partnership."[51]

The law of nations has not even stopped at the points already stated; it proceeds further.  The question of enemy or no enemy, depends not upon the natural allegiance of the partners, but upon their domicile.

[Sidenote:  Partnerships.]

If a partnership is established, and as it were domiciled, in a neutral country, and all the partners reside there, it is treated as a neutral establishment, and is entitled to protection accordingly.  But if one or more of the partners is domiciled in an enemy’s country, he or they are treated personally as enemies, and his share of the partnership property is liable to capture and condemnation accordingly, even though the partnership establishment is in the neutral country.  The inference from these considerations is, that in all these cases there is an utter incompatibility from operation of law between the partners, as to their respective rights, duties, and obligations, both public and private; and therefore, that a dissolution must necessarily result therefrom, independent of the will or acts of the parties.[52]

And, as a general rule, therefore, it may be laid down, that if the performance of a covenant be rendered unlawful by the Government of this country entering into war, the contract will be dissolved on both sides, and the offending party, as he has been compelled to abandon his contract, will be excused from the payment of damages for its non-performance; but it is otherwise, if the non-performance is prevented only by the prohibition of a foreign country.[53]

In such cases, the remedy only is suspended; and other cases may occur on these principles, where, from other circumstances, the remedy only is suspended until the termination of the war; as for example, in most cases of executed contracts.

[Sidenote:  Trading with the Enemy punishable.]

Trading with the Enemy, was at an early period an indictable offence in the English Court of Admiralty.[54] And in the time of King William, it was held to be a misdemeanor at common law, to carry corn to an enemy.[55]

The law, as I have faintly sketched it out, is founded to some extent on American authorities, where the question has been as fully discussed as in the reports of this country; but there can be little doubt that the law is the same in this country:  although a doubt was once thrown on it, by the strong political opinion of Lord Mansfield, as to the policy of allowing trade with an enemy, or assuring an enemy’s property.  The lustre of his talents, and his ascendancy in the Court of King’s Bench, were calculated to continue the delusion.  During his time, the question as to the legality of such insurances was never mooted; for he frowned on every attempt to set up such a defence, as dishonest and against good faith.[56]