Skip to main content
· 9/15/1869

Mixer v. Sibley

Citations

  • 53 Ill. 61

Syllabus

<p>1. Alien enemy—whether he may be sued pending hostilities—effect of the prohibition of commercial intercourse during the late rebellion. The act of congress of July 12,1861, empowering the President to prohibit, by proclamation, all commercial intercourse between the rebellious and the loyal States, and the proclamation of the President in pursuance thereof, issued August 16,1861, prohibiting such intercourse, were not designed to deprive creditors in the adhering States from the use of all such remedies for the collection of their debts, as the laws of those States gave them.</p> <p>2. Such intercourse as is inconsistent with actual hostilities, was forbidden, and that is, not negotiation or contract, but actual locomotive intercourse between individuals of the belligerent States. The law, and the proclamation, were aimed at commercial transactions and commercial objects only, and not to arrest the proceedings of courts of justice.</p> <p>8. So where a party residing in this State, holding a promissory note against a person residing in one of the States in rebellion, in the year 1862, after the act of congress and the President’s proclamation prohibiting commercial intercourse between the adhering States and those in rebellion, commenced a suit thereon by attachment, which was levied on real estate situate in this State, belonging to the maker, and obtained a judgment, and procured a sale to be made of the premises attached, it was held, there being no objection interposed, the court had jurisdiction of the cause, and the judgment and proceedings thereunder were valid and binding, notwithstanding the defendant resided in one of the rebellious States, and the war was at the time in active progress.</p> <p>4. Same—of proceedings to condemn land of am, alien enemy, for rail/road purposes. And where proceedings were instituted, under the same circumstances, to condemn the land of a party residing in one of the rebellious States, for railroad purposes, it was held, t

Judges: Breese

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.