An alien enemy, during war, drew upon a British subject resident in England, and who had funds of the alien in his hands; the drawer then indorsed the bill to an English-born subject, resident in the hostile country; such a bill cannot be enforced even after the restoration of peace, for otherwise it would enable alien enemies to take the benefit of all their property in this country, by allowing them to pay debts out of such funds, by the instrumentality of bills.[39] The principle seems to be,--that it is not every bill that bears the name of an alien enemy upon it that is void, but such bills only that are instrumental in assisting in communication with an alien enemy;--and a liberal application of this principle has been made use of to open a way for English prisoners to make use of their property at home for their support in the country of their captivity. Thus, where one of two Englishmen, detained in France on the breaking out of hostilities, drew in favour of the other, upon a subject here, it was held that he might legally draw such a bill for his _subsistence_, and that he might indorse it to an alien enemy, an inhabitant of the hostile country; for he could not avail himself of the bill except by negociation; and to whom could he negociate it, except to the inhabitants of the country in which he resided?[40] Bills, like other contracts, are only void by the policy of war; but the law still recognizes some extent of obligation between the parties, so that bills void in their concoction (as instruments of trade with the enemy,) are not so far void that they may not constitute the basis of a promise by which a party may bind himself on the return of peace.[41] [Sidenote: Contracts made before the War.] On the very important question of the effect of a declaration on Contracts with the subjects or the enemy, _entered into previous to the War_, the rule is, that if the performance of the contract be rendered unlawful by the Government of the country, the contract is dissolved on both sides.[42] Thus the contract of Affreightment is dissolved when the voyage becomes unlawful, by the commencement of war, or the interdiction of commerce;[43] and this whether the interdiction is complete as to the ship, or partial as to the receiving of goods. Similarly, if the voyage be broken up by Capture on the passage, so as to cause a _complete defeat_ of the undertaking, the contract is dissolved, notwithstanding a recapture.[44] A Blockade of the port of destination, that renders the delivery of the cargo impossible, and obliges the ship to return to its port of destination, dissolves the contract.[45] A temporary interruption of the voyage does not put an end to the agreement. Embargoes, hostile blockades, and investments of the port of departure are held to be temporary impediments only.[46]