1782.
the ſtate out of the forfeiture, and the advocates for the plaintiffs inſiſting that it was a bona fide ſale.
3d. Point. Many caſes were cited, on behalf of the ſtate, to ſhew the right of the ſtate, ought to be preferred to that of an individual, when they both accrue at one and the ſame time.
3. Reſp. pro Quer. The contract was compleat, though liable to be defeated by a ſubſequent event; and the delivery of the ſalt was alſo compleat by the delivery of the key of the ſtore in which it was depoſited. The price to be paid, was, indeed, the object to be affected by the ſubſequent event, and not the ſalt itſelf. The diſtinction between a condition precedent, and a condition ſubſequent was taken to ſhew, that the property being once veſted in the bargainee, could not be taken out of him, by any condition to be performed afterwards, which was impoſſible, repugnant, or illegal; and it was urged, that although the right of the ſtate would have attached firſt, if the plaintiffs had not obtained a prior proſſeſſion by the actual delivery of the ſalt; yet, that having a poſſeſſion before the American army entered, and even before the evacuation of the Britiſh, no ſuch right could poſſibly attach.
The Chief Justice delivered a charge to the jury of the following purport.
M’Kean, C. J. As the council or both ſides have quoted many caſes, but have not appealed to the court for their opinion on the different points of law, the jury muſt take the whole together, and form their own judgment upon the ſubject.
When the Britiſh army evacuated Philadelphia, there was a debate in Congreſs, whether all the property found in the city, and belonging to the king of Great Britain, or any of his ſubjects, ſhould appertain to the United States, or to the State of Pennſylvania only. It was at length agreed, however, that all public property, ſuch as cannon, artillery, &c. ſhould belong to the United States, and the private property of individuals, ſhould belong to the State of Pennſylvania.
An alien enemy has no right of action whatever during the war; but by the law of nations, confirmed by univerſal uſage, at the end of the war, all the rights and credits, which the ſubjects of either power had againſt the other, are revived; for, during the war, they are not extinguiſhed, but merely ſuſpended. If, alſo, a conquered country is ceded, the old poſſeſſors are entitled to their eſtates; and when any country is conquered, the poſſeſſors are not deprived of their eſtates, but only change their maſters. This is clearly the caſe between two independent powers; but how will the caſe be between this country and Great Britain at the cloſe of the war? Why, had we been conquered, our lives and all our property would have been the forfeit; but even as the buſineſs now ſtands, the ſubjects of Great Britain may, perhaps, claim revival of the debts due to them from the Citizens of America, whilſt we, by their acts of parliament, are debarred of the like privilege. It is hard that the people of America ſhould, during the war, re-ceive
