308 



ANNUAL REGISTER, 1813. 



viatingany possible misunderstand- 

 ing respecting it. 



We have, &c. 

 (Signed) Tho. Plumer. 

 W. Gar ROW. 

 Rt. Hon. Lord Viscount 

 Sidmouth, &c. 



Court of Chancery f Council Room, 

 July 28. — Before the Vice- Chan- 

 cellor. — Commercial Aliens. — 

 Moro and others v. Brooke and 

 others. — Plea. 



A partnership or corporation, 

 consisting of persons residing in 

 Madrid, and others, consigned a 

 large quantity of wool, to the va- 

 lue of 60 or 80,000/. to the de- 

 fendants in London, to be deli- 

 vered to the plaintiffs. The de- 

 fendants refused to deliver it, and 

 the plaintiffs sought relief in equi- 

 ty. The defendants filed a plea to 

 the bill, on the ground that the 

 plaintiffs were disabled to sue, by 

 their being partners of the com- 

 pany, or members of the corpora- 

 tion, above-mentioned, the greater 

 part of whom were necessarily re- 

 sident at Madrid, at the time when 

 the wool was consigned, which 

 was a time when Madrid was un- 

 der the dominion of the French. 

 It was, therefore, argued, that the 

 plaintifis could not be permitted to 

 sue on the behalf of those who, 

 as being resident at the time of 

 consignment, in a place then un- 

 der the dominion of the French, 

 must be considered, if not alien 

 enemies to every purpose, at least 

 as-neutrals, adhering to the enemy, 

 and residing in the enemy's coun- 

 try, which constituted a civil dis- 

 qualification; 



The Vice-Chancelior, in giving 

 judgiueot on this plea, gave a de- 



tailed view of the cases upon this 

 subject. The old law on the sub- 

 ject was, that those only were dis- 

 qualified tosue, whose property was 

 forfeited to the king on account 

 of a traitorous adherence to the 

 enemy. That doctrine had, in the 

 modern cases, been extended to 

 those who, being originally British 

 subjects or neutrals, voluntarily 

 chose to reside for the purposes of 

 trade in an enemy's country. But 

 it was not, even upon modern au- 

 thorities, true, that the mere act 

 of residence in an enemy's country 

 was necessarily a disqualification to 

 sue here. It had been decided, 

 that British prisoners in France 

 might levy fines in this country ; 

 and the general doctrine admitted 

 of various olher qualifications. It 

 was also clearly established, that 

 where there was a plea of this 

 kind, the whole of the circum- 

 stances constituting the disquahfi- 

 cation, must be clearly set forth. 

 In the present case, it was not al- 

 leged that the partners then re- 

 siding at Madrid, voluntarily re- 

 sided there. They might have been 

 detained by force for any thing that 

 appeared. It might some time be 

 a question, on this modern doc- 

 trine, who could sue ? According 

 to the old doctrine, the king could 

 sue. But where the king could 

 not sue, was nobody to be permit- 

 ted to sue ? and were the defend- 

 ants always to be allowed to retain 

 the property ? In the present case, 

 at any rate, the circumstances ne- 

 cessary to create the disability did 

 not sufficiently appear, and the 

 plea must be over-ruled. 



The Vice-Chancellor said, that 

 be meant to cast no reflection upon 

 the defendants, who might possi- 



