Tbe major contest of defendants is founded on tbe allegation in tbe complaint tbat tbe plaintiff is a nonresident alien and is living in Nice, in tbe Republic of France. Tbe question arises: Can a nonresident alien sue in tbe courts of this State? We think a resident of any friendly nation can sue.
•In 1796 tbe question arose in this jurisdiction and an English subject was allowed to sue. In a per curiam opinion, in Executors of Cruden v. Neale, 2 N. C., at p. 344, the following observations are made: “All pérsóns in general, as well foreigners as citizens, may come into this court to recover rights withheld, and to obtain satisfaction for injuries done, unless where they are subject to some disability the law imposes. Foreigners are in general entitled to sue, unless a war exists between *236our country and theirs. . . . It is incompatible with a state of national friendship, and is a cause of war, if the citizens of another country are not allowed to sue for and obtain redress of wrongs in our courts.”
The law is stated in 2 C. J. (Aliens), p. 1070, part sec. 37, as follows: “It may be laid down, as a general rule, that aliens, except alien enemies, who are sui juris, and not otherwise specially disabled by the law of the place where the suit is brought, may there maintain suits in the proper courts to vindicate their rights and redress their wrongs. This right is not affected by the fact that a similar remedy is not afforded to aliens in the country to which plaintiff belongs. The right of an alien to sue is a matter of comity as distinguished from a matter of right, and, while the courts will not ordinarily deny the right in the absence of positive legislation taking it away, they should not permit the privilege to be exercised so as to work injury to the interests of citizens of the state.”
1 R. C. L. (Aliens), p. 824, sec. 35, and part 36: “It seems to have been the rule of the early common law that an alien could not maintain real or mixed actions. The reason given was that the maintenance of real actions was not necessary for the encouragement of commerce as in case of personal actions, and that an alien should not be allowed to bring an action to recover property that he could not hold against the state. But the old common-law rule has long since been changed. If an alien may take and hold real estate against every person, he surely may maintain an action to recover its possession from those who wrongfully withhold it from him. If it is the property of the alien as against everybody but the government, he has the right to the use of it; and if necessary to prosecute for it, surely the right to prosecute is necessarily consequent upon the right to its enjoyment. And such is the law at the present time, unless changed by statute. (Sec. 36) As to personal actions, arising or recognized within the jurisdiction, an alien friend, either resident or nonresident, may maintain suit in the courts without any special statutory authority; such was the rule of the early common law, and such is the rule today.” See Krachanake v. Manufacturing Co., 175 N. C., 435.
We have no statute in this State prohibiting aliens from instituting an action in the courts of this State.
“The policy of the United States in all cases of complaint made by foreigners is to extend to them the same means of redress as is enjoyed by our own citizens. ... In the courts of the United States alien friends are entitled to claim the same protection of their rights as citizens.” Moore’s International Law Digest, Vol. 4, sec. 536, p. 7. Van Kempen v. Latham, 195 N. C., at p. 394.
*237In Hinton v. Hinton, 196 N. C., p. 341, it was held in this jurisdiction that an alien was not qualified to act as a juror for as such be was an integral part of the due administration of the law.
It is a matter of common knowledge that the Freneb, and especially the Freneb Huguenots in America, at the breaking out of the Revolutionary War, to a man, joined the American cause. There were no Tories among them. Some of the best fighters, generals and others, were Freneb or of Freneb descent. France came to our rescue during the Revolution and helped us win our independence. It is a disputed fact, but worth preserving, that Gen. John J. Pershing, bead of the American Expeditionary Forces during the World War, stood at LaFayette’s tomb and said “LaFayette, we are here.” Tbe debt we owed to France was not and should never be forgotten. France has always been and is now a friendly nation. We can see no reason why one of her citizens cannot sue in the courts of this State, although a nonresident.
As to the interest proposition, if usury, it must be pleaded. 27 R. 0. L. (Usury), sec. 70. The demurrer cannot be sustained.
The other causes of demurrer cannot be sustained. C. S., 507. Taylor v. Ins. Co., 182 N. C., at p. 122. The judgment below is
Affirmed.