Summary

Nathan Clifford Hanger v. Abbott — Opinion of the Court

Individual debts, as a general remark, are no longer the subject of confiscation, and the rule is universally admitted that if not confiscated during the war, the return of peace brings with it both "the right and the remedy." [19]
Total inability on the part of an enemy creditor to sustain any contract in the tribunals of the other belligerent exists during war, but the restoration of peace removes the disability, and opens the doors of the courts.
Source: Wikisource

Nathan Clifford Hanger v. Abbott — Opinion of the Court

Direct consequence of the rule as established in those cases is that as soon as war is commenced, all trading, negotiation, communication, and intercourse between the citizens of one of the belligerents with those of the other, without the permission of the government, is unlawful. No valid contract therefore can be made, nor can any promise arise by implication of law from any transaction with an enemy.
Source: Wikisource

Nathan Clifford Hanger v. Abbott — Opinion of the Court

Absolute suspension of the right, and prohibition to exercise it, exist during war by the law of nations, and if so, then it is clear that peace cannot bring with it the remedy if the war is of much duration, unless it also be held that the operation of the statute of limitation is also suspended during the period the creditor is prohibited, by the existence of the war and the law of nations, from enforcing his claim.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature