
    Russel against Skipwith.
    Motion to strike off a plea of alien enemy, puis darrein continuance, withdrawn at the suggestion of the Court, and Jeave given, to ■withdraw the former replication, and reply de novo. ■ 1
    THIS suit was brought and at issue before the late war between the United States and Great Britain. After the occurrence of that event, the defendant put in a plea of alien enemy, puis darrein continuance, which, on the restoration of peace, Rawle, jun., for the plaintiff, moved to strike off.
    He contended, that there was a wide difference between a suit brought before the commencement of a war and one brought during hostilities. In the latter case the plaintiff being disqualified to institute an action, at the time of bringing it, he is wrong ab initio, and the restoration of peace cannot set him right; but in the former case the right to sue being originally good, the plea of alien enemy, which is never favoured, merely suspends the action, and on the removal of the disability, it revives in full force. This distinction is well founded both in reason and authority. Le Brett v. Papillon,
      
       Lady Faulkland v. Stanion,
      
       Co. Litt. 128, b. Id. 135, b. 1 Chitty on Pleading, 435.
    The only question is, ■ in what manner is the plaintiff to avail himself of the revival of the action by the return of peace ?
    On the suggestion of the Court, this motion was withdrawn, and instead of it a motion was made and granted, to withdraw the plaintiff’s former replication, and reply de novo.
    
    Biddle, for the defendant.
    
      
      
        4 East, 502.
    
    
      
       12 Mod. 400.
    
     