1916, 1 K.B. 912; C.A., 1916, 2 K.B. 428; and see

pp. 25 and 248 ante.]

This may be amplified by a reference to the following

remarks made in another recent case : —

" It is a general proposition of law that, if a contract Miller &
is rendered unlawful by the Government of the country, Oo. v.
it is dissolved on both sides. But in the application ^ ylor &
of this rule care must be taken in each case to con-
sider whether the particular act of state had rendered
the performance of a contract impossible, or only
suspended its operation. If it only delays its execution
for a reasonable period and does not frustrate the
performance of the contract as a mercantile adventure
the promisor is not held to be excused." [Andrew
Miller & Co., Ltd. v. Taylor & Co., 1916, 1 K.B. 402.]

In a recent war case an attempt was made to apply London
the principle of Krell v. Henry (see p. 278), but without Northern
success. The plaintiffs before war let to the defend- ^"^
ant, an Austrian subject, a residential flat for a term Schle-

smger.
