The breaking out of a war does not nec essarily and as a matter of law revoke every agency ; it depends upon the circum stances and the nature of the agency ; Wil liams v. Paine, 169 U. S. 73, 18 Sup. Ct. 279, 42 L. Ed. 658. A contract of agency of an in surance company is revoked ; New York L. Ins. Co. v. Davis, 95 U. S. 425, 24 L. Ed. 453, citing New York L. Ins. Co. v. Statham, 93 U. S. 24, 23 L. Ed. 789. In order to the sub sistence of an agency during the war, it must have the assent of the parties ; New York L. Ins. Co. v. Davis, 95 U. S. 429, 24 L. Ed. 453.
War suspends the capacity of an alien enemy to sue in our courts ; Fairfax v. Hunters, 7 Cra. (U. S.) 603, 3 L. Ed. 453 ; Johnson v. Thirteen Bales, 2 Paine 639, Fed. Cas. No, 7,415. But see 4 Am. L. T. 68. An assignee of an alien enemy cannot sustain a claim in a prize court; The Emulous, 1 Gall. 563, Fed. Cas. No. 4,479 ; but an alien enemy may come into admiralty and defend his property seized as prize on the high seas ; U. S. v. Shares of Capital Stock, 5 Blatchf. 231, Fed. Cas. No. 15,961. The right to pro ceed in an action begun before the war is only suspended ; Elgee's Adm'r v. Lovell, Woolw. 102, Fed. Cas. No. 4,344. Neither interest nor the statute of limitations run during a war.
As to the effect of war on life insurance contracts, the authorities vary; that the failure to pay premiums avoids the policy, see New York L. Ins. Co. v. Statham, 93 U. S. 24, 23 L. Ed. 789 ; New York L. Ins. Co. v. Davis, 95 U. S. 425, 24 L. Ed. 453 ; that the contract is not annulled by war, but only suspended, see New York L. Ins. Co. v. Clop ton, 7 Bush (Ky.) 179, 3 Am. Rep. 290; Mutual B. L. Ins. Co. v. Hillyard, 37 N. J. L. 444, 18 Am. Rep. 741; Manhattan L. Ins. Co. v. Warwick, 20 Gratt. (Va.) 614, 3 Am. Rep. 218 ; Hamilton v. Ins. Co., 9 Blatchf. 234, Fed. Cas. 5,986 ; Statham v. Ins. Co., 45 Miss. 581, 7 Am. Rep. 737. In most of the latter cases either the insured had made a tender of the premiums or the company's agent had removed during the war ; 1 Biddle, ins. § 489. There seems to be authority that a fire insurance policy is not annulled by war ; see Mahler v. Ins. Co., 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 399 ; as to a marine policy, see Cohen v. Ins. Co., 50 N. Y. 619, 10 Am. Rep. 522.
In time of war it is lawful to pull down or injure the property of a private person ; salus populi suprema ; 4 Term 796.
An American corporation doing business in Cuba was, during the war with Spain, an enemy of the United States with respect to its property found and then used in Cuba, and such property would be regarded as enemy's property, liable to be seized and con fiscated by the United States in the progress of the war ; Juragua I. Co. v. U. S., 212 U. S. 297, 29 Sup. Ct. 385, 53 L. Ed. 520. All persons residing in Cuba during the war, whether Spanish subjects or Americans, were to be deemed enemies of the United States; Herrera v. U. S., 222 U. S. 558, 32 Sup. Ct. 179, 56 L. Ed. 316.
No civil liability attached to officers or soldiers for an act done in accordance with the usages of civilized warfare, in the late rebellion under and by military authority of either party ; Freeland v. Williams, 131 U. S. 405, 9 Sup. Ct. 763, 33 L. Ed. 193. The legal condition of a Confederate soldier was that of a soldier serving against the United States under a hostile power. His legal con dition subsequently to May,, 1865, was that of a prisoner of war upon parole ; Carter v. U. S., 23 Ct. Cl. 326.
In cases arising out of the Spanish-Ameri can war, it is held that vessels of war have the right, in the absence of any declaration of exemption by the political power, to cap ture enemy's property wherever found afloat, and the burden is on the claimant to show that it comes within the exemption of any such proclamation. Cargo shipped from this country in an enemy's vessel to residents of a neutral country is presumably neutral car go; but if so shipped to the enemy's country it is presumptively enemy's property, but the latter presumption may be overcome ; The Buena Ventura, 87 927.
At the Hague Peace Conference of 1899 two conventions were adopted relating to the rights and duties of belligerents in time of war; and at the Hague Peace Conference of 1907, the above conventions were revised and seven other conventions adopted regulating the law upon other questions of land and maritime warfare.
The Convention Relative to the Commence ment of Hostilities (1907) provides that hos tilities must not commence without a previous and unequivocal warning, which shall take the form either of a declaration of war, giv ing reasons, or of an ultimatum with a con ditional declaration of war. Moreover, the state of war must be notified to neutral pow ers without delay.