HEPBURN'S CASE.— 3 BLAND. 101

that under the Provincial government, and of course since, the
property of British merchants here has been, and is understood to
be a depositum or peculiar security for the payment of country
creditors; to the extent therefore of such property credit is given
here without inquiry into the circumstances of the merchant else-
where; and on these considerations our attachment Act and prac-
tice have been founded; thus intimating, as the fact is, that the
proceeding by attachment is founded as well upon the custom of
the country as upon legislative enactments. Burk v. M'Clain, 1
H. & McH. 236.

Hence it appears, that this creditor might have obtained satis-
faction from the property of the Mollisons in Maryland, by attach-
ment; that it was his only remedy; and one which had been most
emphatically framed to suit such cases as his, and was eminently
calculated to afford the most effectual relief to country creditors
against British debtors.

There can be doubt that Hepburn might have proceeded by
attachment at any time during peace; but it is said, that the Revo-
lutionary War had commenced before this debt became due; and,
that from the 4th of July. 1770, to the peace of 1783, the Mollisons
were alien enemies. It is now, however, universally admitted,
that an alien enemy, resident in the country, may sue and be sued;
and further, that the remedies on private contracts for the recovery
of debts are not forever barred, but merely suspended by a war
between the nations of the creditor and debtor. The only reason
why a non-resident alien enemy is not allowed to sue is, that he
should not be permitted to recover property and take it out of the
country, so as thereby to strengthen the enemy. Vattel. b. 3, s. 77;
Clarke v. Morey. 10 John. Rep. 70; Buchanan v. Curry, 19 John.
Rep. 137.

But this lesson in no way applies to the case of a citizen credi-
tor, suing by attachment to obtain satisfaction from a non-resident
alien enemy debtor. In such case, our own citizen by making the
property so available to the satisfaction of his own debt, does so
far strengthen oar own country at the expense of the enemy.
Willis v. Pearce, 6 H. & J. 191, note. The disability of an alien
enemy to sue is so extended as to prevent him from gaining any
advantage for himself and his country; and, therefore, he is not
only disabled from suing for the purpose * of procuring any
immediate relief; but he is not allowed to obtain testimony 1221
by a bill of discovery in equity, so as thereby to lay a foundation
for obtaining relief elsewhere, that is, by attachment or otherwise
from the property of our citizens in the alien's own country or
elsewhere. Daubigny v. Davallon, 2 Anstr. 463; Albretcht v. Suss-
mann, 2 Ves, & B/323.

It is clear then, upon principle, that there was nothing in the
circumstances of the Mollisons having been non-resident alien ene-