(2) Trading with the enemy does not become legal by the fact that goods coming from the enemy country to Great Britain, or going from Great Britain to the enemy country, are sent to their destination through a neutral country.[216] (3) As regards contracts entered into _before_[217] the outbreak of war, a distinction must be drawn:--(_a_) Executory contracts are avoided, both parties being released from performance. (_b_) Contracts executed before the outbreak of war and not requiring to be acted upon during the war are suspended until after the conclusion of peace. (_c_) Executed contracts which require acting upon during the war are dissolved. (4) Partnerships[218] with alien enemies are dissolved. (5) No interest runs on debts[219] or mortgages.[220] (6) A contract of affreightment[221] must not be fulfilled; therefore English ships must not load or unload goods in an enemy port. (7) Contracts of insurance of enemy vessels and goods are so to be construed as to contain a proviso that the assurance shall not cover any loss occurring during a war between the country of the assurer and the country of the assured.[222] (8) A life insurance policy,[223] entered into before the outbreak of war conditioning the payment of yearly premiums on pain of forfeiture of the policy, is forfeited _ipso facto_ by the outbreak of war because the payment of the premium is now prohibited. After the conclusion of peace, however, the insured may claim the equitable value of the policy arising, at the time of the outbreak of war, from the premiums actually paid. [Footnote 209: See besides the English and American text-books quoted above at the commencement of § 97, Pennant, Chadwick, and Gregory in _The Law Quarterly Review_, XVIII. (1902), pp. 289-296, XX. (1904), pp. 167-185, XXV. (1909), pp. 297-316; Bentwich, _The Law of Private Property in War_ (1907), pp. 46-61; Phillipson, _The Effect of War on Contracts_ (1909); Latifi, _Effects of War on Property_ (1909), pp. 50-58.] [Footnote 210: Whereas the Admiralty Court did at all times, the Common Law Courts did not during the eighteenth century hold trading with enemy subjects to be illegal, at any rate not in so far as insurance of enemy vessels and goods against capture on the part of English cruisers was concerned; see _Henkle_ v. _London Exchange Assurance Co._ (1749), 1 Vesey Sen. 320; _Planche_ v. _Fletcher_ (1779), 1 Dougl. 251; _Lavabre_ v. _Wilson_ (1779), 1 Dougl. 284; _Gist_ v. _Mason_ (1786), 1 T.R. 84.] [Footnote 211: Besides the Admiralty case of the _Hoop_ (1799), 1 C. Rob. 196, the following are the leading cases:--_Potts_ v. _Bell_ (1800), 8 D. & E. 548; _Furtado_ v. _Rodgers_ (1802), 3 P. & B. 191; _Esposito_ v. _Bowden_ (1857), 7 E. & B. 763; the _Mashona_ (1900), 10 _Cape Times_ Law Reports, 170.] [Footnote 212: _Willison_ v. _Paterson_ (1817), 7 Taunt, 439.] [Footnote 213: _Antoine_ v. _Morshead_ (1815), 6 Taunt, 237.]