During war, and while the character of alien enemy continues, no suit will lie in the British Courts by the enemy, in proper person, on a ransom bill, notwithstanding it is a contract arising out of the law of war. The remedy to enforce payment of the ransom bill for the benefit of the enemy captor, is by an action by the imprisoned hostage, in the courts of his own country, for the recovery of his freedom. The hostage consists generally of one or two principal officers of the captured prize, more generally one only. As the ransom is in the nature of a pledge, the ransom cannot exceed the value of the ship, so that the master cannot bind his owner for a larger value; and on the same principle, the captor is bound to take the vessel or its value if abandoned by the owner, or what it sells for if the owner is insolvent. He is also bound to maintain the hostage, and that is an item in the ransom bill. In estimating the ransom and expenses of the hostage as a damage or loss, they are regarded in the nature of general average, and the several persons interested in the ship, freight, and cargo, must all contribute towards them.[129] [Sidenote: Recaptures.] Although in strictness _every_ prize legally made, may be adjudged to the captor, yet there are cases where he ought to restore, wholly, or in part, that which he may legally have taken from the enemy. This is the case of recaptures. According to the universal law of nations, the question whether the recapture ought to be restored to the first proprietor, seems to depend essentially on another, namely, whether the captor has become full proprietor of the prize, _to the total extinction_ of the rights of the first proprietor. If we admit that he may have become so, there would be no further perfect and external obligation on the _recaptor_ to restore property which has become that of the enemy; and on which the first proprietor has lost all claim. There may be a thousand reasons of equity why he should not enrich himself by the spoil of his fellow citizens or friends; but then, that restitution would not be according to the strict rule of natural law; if indeed all claim had so passed away. The captor has, without doubt, a right to take away the enemy's goods. He may, without troubling himself with the proprietor's rights, detain them, with intent to appropriate to himself, in the same manner, in every respect, as he may seize _res nullius_ in the time of peace; but it does not follow from thence that the effect of these two actions is the same, when applied to objects of so different a condition, or that the right of war alone, without cession or renunciation, is a title sufficient for a full property.