Case ID: us-ct-cl_15/html/0469-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Nott, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CAMPS CASE.
    Benjamin F. Camp v. The United States.
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    
      In 1864 an assistant special agent agrees to give the claimant one-fourth of so much of the Blgee cotton as he may bring out. The claimant brings out a large quantity. It is taken from him by a military officer and placed in the government yard. The owner appears and brings an action of replevin. The cotton is sold pendente lite by stipulation, and the proceeds are held subject to the suit, which is finally determined against the owner. Se then brings a suit in this court for the proceeds under the Abandoned or captured property Act. In 1865 the Secretary of the Treasury makes a payment to the claimant on account of his expenditures, ifc., in bringing out the cotton. After the time has elapsed for bringing suits under the Abandoned or captured property Act, the claimant brings an action on Ms contract for one-fourth of the proceeds in the Treasury. Subsequently the owner recovers, and ail of the proceeds are paid to him.
    
    
      I.Though an agreement made in 1864 "by an assistant special agent of the Treasury for the bringing out of cotton -was utterly void, yet the Secretary of the Treasury had power subsequently to ratify the transaction.
    II.Transactions under the Abandoned or eaplared properly dot (12 Sfcat. L., 820) -were considered and treatod by the government as a distinct business, which was to be self-supporting, and was not to become a charge on the general Treasury.
    III. A contract to bring out cotton for ono-fourbli cast no general obligation on the defendants to piay the contractor for his services. It was simply an agreement to share in the proceeds of the adventure.
    IV. It constituted no breach of such a contract on the part of the defendants that they hold the proceeds of the cotton while they were the subject of litigation, and that they paid away the contractor’s por- ' tion to a third person, the owner of the cotton, pursuant to the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction.
    V.A case must be adjudged as of the time when the claimant brought his action.
    
      The lieporters’ statement of tlie case:
    The following are the facts of the case as found by the court:
    I. In the months of January, February, March, and April, 1864, one Balph S. Hart was the assistant special agent of the Treasury Department for the district of Natchez, in the State of Mississippi.
    II. There was at that time stored on the banks of Buffalo Bayou, in the county of Adams and State of Mississippi, within said district, about twenty-two hundred bales of cotton, the property of one John K. Elgee, a resident of Alexandria, in the State of Louisiana, then within the lines of rebel occupation.
    Ill; On or about the 1st April, 1864, the agent, Hart, had known of the existence and location of the cotton before described for about two months. About the 1st April he entered into an arrangement with the claimant, not in writing, whereby it was understood and agreed between them that the claimant should bring out the Elgee cotton, and turn it over to the government through the agent in Natchez. ■ The agent was then to represent the arrangement and business, whatever it might be, to the Secretary of the Treasury, and was likewise to represent that he had assured the claimant, by the arrangement, that the Secretary would allow to him 25 per cent, of the proceeds of the cotton at least. No bond of indemnity was given by tbe claimant. By tbe arrangement tbe claimant was also to pay to tbe agent, Hart, out of tbe proceeds, when received by bim, from $5,000 to $10,000, provided that tbe Secretary of tbe Treasury should see no impropriety in bis, tbe agent’s, accepting from tbe claimant a portion of tbe proceeds,
    IY. At tbe time that tbe before-described arrangement was entered into by tbe agent, Hart, and tbe claimant, tbe latter beld tbe written authorities annexed to tliese findings as a part thereof, authorizing bim to collect cotton, which authorities bad been issued to bim about tbe time of their respective dates, but which bad not been understood or intended to be applicable to tbe Elgee cotton. (Exhibits A, B, O, D, E, post.)
    
    Y. On March 15, 1864, said Hart executed and delivered to one John Lockwood tbe following paper, which related to tbe said Elgee cotton:
    “Office Asst. Special Agent Treasury Dep’t,
    
      “Natchez, Miss., March 15,1864.
    “To John Lockwood, Esq.,
    “ Of Milwaukee, Wisconsin :
    
    “ You are authorized and directed by me, in case any attempt shall be made by any one, whether be bold an authority from me to remove tbe lot of cotton on Old or Buffalo Bivers, or Avbetber be do not bold an authority, to seize said cotton and bring it to Natchez, and revoke, in my name and by my authority, any such authority, and if necessary to cause the arrest of any such person or persons.
    “You are furthermore authorized to direct tbe operations and guide tbe movement of any military that may be in service in tbe getting out of said cotton, and to seize and bring to Natchez any and all steamboats and persons attempting to carry tbe same, or any portion thereof, elsewhere.
    “B. S. Hart,
    “ Asst. Spl. Agt. Try. Dept., Natchez Dist.
    
    “I solemnly swear that I will faithfully, to tbe best of my ability, execute tbe within trust.
    “John Lockwood.
    “ Subscribed and sworn to before me the day and year within named.
    “B. S. Hart,
    “ Asst. Spl. Agt. Try. Dept., Natchez Dist.”
    
    YI. On or about March 31,1864, tbe claimant, representing himself as a Treasury agent, engaged tbe services of tbe transport boat Venango, wMcb, under tbe protection of the gunboat Champion, ascended the said Buffalo Bayou, took on board 572 bales of the Elgee cotton, and brought the same to Natchez,, where the cotton was seized by General Tuttle, commanding-the military force there, on suspicion that the claimant intended to appropriate it to himself, and was placed under guard in the government yard.
    The claimant thereupon sent two communications, the one t<?' the agent, Hart, and the other to William P. Mellen, the supervising special agent of the Treasury for the department embracing the district of Natchez, which are annexed to and form part of these findings. (Exhibits F, G.)
    VII. The cotton, by direction of the supervising special agent of the Treasury, was forwarded to Saint Louis. After it reached Saint Louis, the owner, Elgee, brought an action of replevin in the circuit court of Saint Louis County to recover the possession of it from O. S. Lovell, the agent of the Treasury Department, to whom it had been consigned at that place. The-United States took charge of the defense of said action, and on the 22d of June, 1864, a stipulation was entered into in reference to said action by the Secretary of the Treasury, the Solicitor of the Treasury, and the plaintiff, Elgee, which is annexed to and forms a part of these findings. (Exhibit H.)
    VIII. In pursuance of the said stipulation, the said cotton was sold and the proceeds thereof deposited as therein provided, and the said action was removed to the circuit court of the United States for the district of Missouri. Thereafter a decision was rendered by the said United States circuit court in favor of the defendant. Frdin said judgment an appeal was-taken to the United States Supreme Court, where said judgment was affirmed.
    IX. The claimant presented his claim for compensation to-the Treasury Department, and the said department, by the Assistant Secretary .of the Treasury, on the 6th of December,. 1865, directed the Commissioner of Customs to state an account and make a requisition in favor of claimant “ for the sum of $30,000, being part of the proceeds of certain cotton known as the Elgee cotton, collected as captured or abandoned property by said Camp, for an interest therein; said sum being an advance to said Camp on account of his expenditures, in relation to said cotton.” And said sum of $30,000 was,.in pursuance of said order, paid to tbe claimant, be at tbe same time giving a bond of indemnity tberefor. (Exhibits I and J.)
    And on tbe 7th of March, I860, tbe Assistant Secretary of tbe Treasury directed tbe Commissioner of Customs, who was charged with that duty, to state an account and make a requisition in favor of William Prescott Smith (who bad acquired a joint interest with .claimant in said claim) for tbe sum of $15,000, being part'of tbe proceeds of tbe said cotton “ collected as captured or abandoned property by B. F. Camp for an interest therein; said sum being an advance to said Smith on account of bis joint interest with said Camp in said cotton.” And said sum of $15,000 was, in pursuance of said order, paid to the said Smith, be at tbe same time giving a bond of indemnity therefor. (Exhibits K and L.)
    N. Prior to the 20th August, 1868, tbe heirs and rejn’esenta-. tives of tbe said John K. Elgee, be being dead, brought a suit in this court under the abandoned or captured property act to recover tbe proceeds of tbe said cotton, which suit was pending and undetermined when tbe claimant commenced the present action.
    XI. On tbe 2cl day of May, 1864, tbe said John K. Elgee took tbe amnesty oath prescribed by tbe proclamation of President Lincoln of tbe 8th of December, 1863. His claim to the said cotton was established and bis loyalty proved under tbe requirements of tbe acts relating to abandoned or captured property by force of tbe amnesty proclamation, and not otherwise,, and tbe said cotton was, as to ownership and condition, liable to seizure when taken by Camp.
    XII. Tbe gross proceeds of tbe sale of said cotton were.. $381,428 27
    From these were deducted for freight charges and expenses of and prior to said sales.:. $45,349 12
    Legal expenses. 16, 000 00
    Amount paid B. F. Camp as aforesaid - 30, 000 00
    AmountpaidW.P.Smitbasaforesaid. 15,000 00
    - 106,349 12
    Net proceeds. 275, 079 15
    Interest on bonds as per stipulation . 91, 091 68
    Net amount paid into tbe Treasury 366,170 83
    
      The. said fund was, in pursuance of the joint resolution of Congress, approved March 30,1808, covered into the Treasury.
    XIII. Twenty-five per cent, of the proceeds of captured cotton was the remuneration ordinarily allowed and paid by the Treasury Department to contractors under the Treasury regulations for collecting and bringing in such property.
    “ Exhibits referred to in the findings of fact.
    
    “Exhibit A.
    “Opeice Ass’t Special Agent Treasury Dep’t,
    “ Natchez, Miss., January 26,1804.
    “ To any officer of any United States gunboat, or any of the U. S. land forces:
    
    “These are to authorize Benjamin F. Camp, of New York City, to collect & take possession of any abandoned cotton or C. S. A. cotton, or other abandoned products of the country, which he may find within the Natchez district of the 1st agency, and to transport the same to Natchez, but not elsewhere, and deliver the same into the possession of the undersigned, and also to request any gunboat officer, or any officer in the land service of the United States, to furnish him such incidental protection in the fulfillment of these objects as may be consistent with the service.
    “B. S. Hart,
    
      “Ass’t Special Ag’t Tr’y Dep’m’t, Natchez JDist., 1st Agency.”
    
    (Any cotton.)
    “Exhibit B.
    “ Oeeice Ash’t Special Agent Treasuey Dep’t,
    “ Natchez, Miss., Jan’y 28,1864.
    “ To whom it may concern:
    
    “These are to authorize B. F. Camp, esq., of the city of N. York, the bearer thereof, in my behalf as assistant special of the Tr’y Dep’t for the Natchez district of the first agency, to seize and cause to be brought to Natchez any and all lots of cotton which he may find within said district in the hands of any purchaser bearing the mark O. S. A., or other Confederate cotton, and to cause the same to be forwarded to Natchez, and there to be deposited in the gov’t cotton-yard, subject to the Treasury regulations, provided he shall be satisfied that the same was procured in said district, and that it is being transported, or is meant and intended to be transported, from within said district in fraud of the United States and of the Treasury Dep’t.
    “B.. S. Hart,
    “ Ass’t Spe’l Ag’t, Natchez.”
    
    
      “Exhibit C.
    “ Natchez, March 5, ’64.
    “Admiral D. D. Portee,
    “ United, States Navy:
    
    “ Sir : The bearer, Hor. B. F. Camp, of New York, has been appointed by me and authorized over my signature to collect C. S. A. and abandoned cotton & other abandoned property which he may find anywhere within the Natchez district, & to transport the same to Natchez. Mr. Camp is a gentleman standing high with the authorities at Washington, and any aid you may be able to afford him, consistent with the service, will be duly appreciated, not only by the undersigned, but by the Washington authorities, I doubt not.
    “Very resp’y, <Src.
    “R. S. Hart,
    “ Tr’y Ag’t, Natchez.”
    
    “Exhibit D.
    “Oeeice Ass’t Special Agent Treasury Dep’t,
    
      “Natchez, Miss., Jan’y 24, 1864.
    “I have no objections to the gunboats protecting the shipment of all and any cotton lying in my, or near the Natchez, district upon board my steamers, provided the steamer is conveyed to Natchez. On the contrary, it is my desire that such protection be given. But the cotton must come to Natchez, & be reported here, & for this I will hold the gunboat protecting it liable. I refer to private cotton, or cotton purchased on private account. Let all such be brought to Natchez, provided it is shipped within the Natchez district, which extends from the mouth of the Big Black to the mouth of Red River, on both sides of the'Mississippi.
    “This is meant for B. F. Camp, esq., the bearer, and refers to cotton protected for him on his request only.
    “R. S. Hart,
    “ Ass’t Sp’l Ag’t Tr’ry Dep’t, Military Dist., 1st Agency.”
    
    “Exhibit E.
    “Oppice Ass’t Special Ag’t Treasury Dep’t,
    “ Natchez, Miss., J?eb. 26, 1864.
    “ The bearer, the Hon. B. F. Camp, of New York, is authorized to collect, receive, ship, and transport to Natchez, but not elsewhere, any and all O. S. A. or abandoned cotton which he may discover within the Natchez district, to be turned over at Natchez to the Covernment of the United States, to wit, to the undersigned, agent of the Treasury Department, with any other aban’ed property he may discover.
    
      “ And these are to request the aid of all and any officers or officer or soldier of the United States Nary or Army to aid him therein.
    “He is further authorized to seize any vessel or vessels which he may find laden in whole or part with C. S. A. or abandoned cotton, and bring any and all such vessels and their cargoes to Natchez, there to detain the same until the under-, signed shall have opportunity to inspect such cargoes, and determine whether they or any part thereof are subject to seiz. ure as C. S. A. or abandoned cotton.
    “R. S. Hart,
    
      “Ass’t Sp’l Ag’t Treas’y Dep’t, and Acting Collector of Customs, Natchez.”
    
    
      (.Indorsements on Exhibit E.)
    
    “This authority is limited to thirty days.
    “Feb’y 26,’64.
    “R. S. Hart,
    
      “Ass’t Sp’l Ag’t.”
    
    “Marci-i 15.
    “Renewed for thirty days from March 26th.
    “R. S. Hart,
    
      “Ass’t Sp’l Ag’t Tr’y Bep’t, Natchez JDist.”
    
    “Personally comes before the undersigned Tr’y ag’t the within named Benjamin F. Camp, and makes oath in due form of law that he will faithfully execute the within trust according to the best of his skill & understanding.
    “B. F. Camp.
    “Subscribed and sworn to before me this 15th March, 1864.
    (Indorsed in blue j>encil:)
    “ H’dq’rs, R. R. Express,
    
      11 Steamer Clara Bell, Mar. 12, ’69.
    “Mr. B. F. Camp has authority to d Red River for purposes contained in the within instructions.
    “A. J. Smith,
    
      “Brig. Gen’l, Army.”
    
    “This is satisfactory.
    “C. ÜOM1NY,
    “ U. S. S. General Bragg.”
    
    
      “Exhibit F.
    “Natchez, April 9th.
    
    “E. S. Hart,
    ■ uAss't Sp'l Ag't Treas'y Dep't:
    
    “Sir: The five hundred and seventy-two bales of cotton collected raider your authority as abandoned cotton, and brought to this city upon the steamer Venango, I now turn over to you as the agent for abandoned property of the gov’t,
    “ Yours, resp’lv,
    “B. F. CAMP.”
    “Exhibit G.
    “Natchez, April 7th. 1864.
    “ Hon. Wir. P. Mellen,
    “ Supervising Special Agent- Treasury Department,
    
      Cincinnati, Ohio :
    
    “ Sir : Under special authority issued by E. S. Hart, esq., assistant special agent of the Natchez district, I proceeded to Fort Adams, and on the morning of the 31st of March ascended a stream of water known as Buffalo Creek, in said district, and took on board the steamer Venango, accompanied by the gunboat Champion, five hundred and seventy-two bales of abandoned cotton, known as the Elgee and Chambers cotton; said cotton having been specially named in the authority given by E. S. Hart, esq., in the orders to collect the cotton and bring it to Natchez. I performed that duty strictly in accordance with his instructions, and brought the property, which, beyond all doubt or question of doubt, belongs to the Government of the United States.
    “When I arrived here with the property, I requested that an immediate account be taken of the property and forwarded at once to you at Cincinnati. But, to my great surprise, I found E. S. Hart, esq., unwilling to act until certain parties professing to have claims against the property should have a hearing. Knowing the worthlessness of their claims, and being very familiar with the enormous frauds being practiced on the government here and elsewhere, I insisted that the cotton be sent ,you for your decision in the matter. This Hart objected to, and thought I was too hasty in the matter. Whether I was or not I leave to you to judge after you read the subjoined statement of the trickery now trying to be practiced.
    “A man by the name of Nutt claims to have bought the cotton in October last, at £15 sterling per bale, of Elgee and Chambers, both well-known rebels, and both having lived in the so-called Confederacy since the war commenced. Elgee, one of its former owners, having signed the ordinance of secession to carry this State out of the Union, abandoned his plantations in Mississippi, and .they have been rented three times by the government as abandoned plantations. This of itself, I think, would make it abandoned cotton, to say nothing of the visitation, and paying for it in sterling; but on the morning of the 1st of April, at least two weeks after -was given to collect this special lot of cotton, a bill of sale was made out to Mr. G-eorge Field (a former commissioner of renting plantations) for the same, and, to my great surprise, Mr. Field is making himself very busy in trying to establish a title to it, the justice of which you can readily see.
    “In addition to Mr. Field, General Tuttle is also making himself very busy in trying to defeat the government from getting this property, having told me this morning at the Treasury Department that I must have known it was private property. My reply was that the Treasury Department was competent to judge of that matter. This, I presume, offended his highness, and this evening I-learned from Mr. Hart that there is a strong probability of my being arrested. Of course, I do not desire to be arrested, but 1 assure you I am ready for anything that comes, knowing that I am right in protecting the government from the robberies now trying to be practiced upon it.
    “ So disgusted am I, either with the incompetency and inefficiency of Hart, or his collusion with the parties, that I was forced to tell him that his position was one against the government, and consequently a condemnation of himself.
    “Now, sir, what do you think of a trio composed of a commanding general of the United States forces and the United States Commissioner Field refusing to have the matter settled by the chief of the first Treasury agency ? Of course you see I am making the fight alone, but mean to maintain the rights of the government let what come.
    “If this vast amount of property is worth saving, I hope you will come to my relief immediately. The parties are perfectly desperate in their efforts to obtain the property. I also ought to state that I agreed that the claimants should follow the property to Cincinnati, and that I would keep the property on board the steamer twelve hours to give them ample time to enter their protest, and I would pay their expenses up and down. This was declined. I also agreed that if they would pay all the expenses incurred upon the property in getting it to Natchez, that I would turn the property over to Judge Hart until you had an opportunity to investigate and settle the matter yourself. This was also declined, all parties knowing too well that you would soon dispose of it in favor of the government, and that any other course would be fraud and robbery of the government.
    “ Yours, very respectfully,
    “B. F. ('AMP.”
    
      “Exhibit H.
    “Whereas an action was brought in the circuit court of St. mis County, and State of Missouri, on the eleventh day of me, eighteen hundred and sixty-four, .by John K. Elgee, gainst Oliver Lovell, for the recovery of five hundred and venty-two bales of cotton, which cotton is claimed by the nited States as abandoned property under the act of Congress >proved March 12, 1863, but which the said Elgee claims as s property, wrongfully taken and detained from him by the jents of the United States.; and
    “ Whereas it is desired that said cotton should be forthwith ild to save risk and expenses connected therewith, but with-it prejudice to any claims set up in respect thereto: Now, Lerefore,
    “It is agreed by and between the Solicitor of the Treasury of e United States, of the one part, herein acting with the ap-•oval of the Secretary of the Treasury, and John K. Elgee, of le other part, as follows:
    “First. The said action shall without delay be removed to e circuit court of the United States for the district of Missouri r said Lovell, under the provisions of the act of Congress iproved March 3d, 1863.
    “ Second. Said cotton shall be sold by the agent of the Treas-y Department forthwith at St. Louis, at auction, to the highest dder, for cash, at which sale the agents and attorneys of said Igee shall be present and make public announcement that ‘.tween said Elgee and the United States that matters of dif-rence an respect to said cotton have been so arranged that sither said Elgee nor any person by him authorized will assert ■•ainst any purchaser thereof any claim on his part to said >tton. „
    
      “ Third. From the money received from said sale enough shall i reserved and applied by the agent of the Treasury Depart-ent to pay such actual and reasonable expenses connected ith the care and sale of said cotton in St. Louis and such fight on said cotton from Natchez to St. Louis as may be ;reed to by the agents or attorneys of said Elgee or approved r the Seferetary of the Treasury, and also such other expenses, any, attending the transportation of said cotton to Natchez, id such storage and other expenses chargeable to said cotton Natchez as said agent of the Treasury Department shall cornier proper and just: Provided, hoivever, That said agent shall it pay any such expenses as mentioned in the last preceding iuse until after the same shall be approved by the Secretary the Treasury, which approval shall not be given until after asonable opportunity shall be given by him to said Elgee or s attorney to be heard in opposition thereto.
    “Fourth. The remainder of the money received from the said le shall be invested in the bonds of the United States known as ‘ten-forty bonds,’ witli interest oupons, which bonds shall be immediately made up and sealed in a package, and such pack age shall be deposited with the assistant treasurer of the Unitec States at St. Louis as a special deposit, subject to the order oi the Solicitor of the Treasury, endorsed with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, for the following purposes, and upor the following terms, to wit: Said package to remain as such special deposit in the hands of said assistant treasurer of the United States until the final determination of the said action brought by Elgee against Lovell, it being expressly agreed anc understood by the parties hereto that upon such final determi nation of said cause, if it be in favor of said Elgee and against said Lovell, the said package shall be considered as standing ii lieu of the five hundred and seventy-two bales of cotton, and i the judgment of the court be for the recovery by said Elgee o the said five hundred and seventy-two bales of cotton, or anj part thereof, or for damages in lieu of the same, then the Solici tor of the Treasury shall order the said package, or such pro portion of the bonds therein contained as shall be equivalem to the amount or proportion of said five hundred and seventy two bales of cotton, or damages in lieu thereof, for which pay ment shall have been rendered as aforesaid, to be delivered tc the said Elgee, or his authorized agents or his legal representa tives, which order shall, in such cases, be approved as aforesaic by said Secretary, and such delivery being made shall b< deemed to be the same as the delivery of said cotton, and shal be in full satisfaction of such judgment and of all damage; awarded in said suit, whether equal in .amount thereto or not and also in full satisfaction of all claims of said Elgee agains: the United States, or any officer or employe thereof, arising ou of or in respect to the said five hundred and seventy-two bale; of cotton, or against any person who at any time had said cot ton in possession under authority of or under contract with th< United States or any of its officers, agents, or servants: Pro vided, That if such delivery shall be prevented by any actioi or proceeding at law or in equity in respect to said bonds, oi said Elgee’s interest therein, to which said cotton would, if re maining unsold, have been legally subject, then the delivery bj the Solicitor of the Treasury to said Elgee or his representa tives of such order as above mentioned, approved by the Sec rotary as aforesaid, shall be deemed and taken to all intent; and purposes as equivalent to the delivery of said bonds, oi such portion thereof as shall be embraced therein, and shal have the like effect as the delivery of the bonds themselves, a; hereinbefore stipulated.
    “Fifth. The said Solicitor of the Treasury, on his part, agrees that the said Lovell was, at the time of the issue and service o: the writ of summons in said cause, in possession of the said five hundred and seventy-two bales of cotton as egent of tin 'nited States, and not otherwise; and farther agrees that the ict'of possession by him as aforesaid shall be admitted by said ovell in said case on the record thereof.
    “In witness whereof the said parties have hereunto set their ands this 22d day of June, 1864.
    “Edward Jordan,
    “ Solicitor of the Treasury.
    
    “Approved June 22d, 1864.
    “S. P. Chase,
    “ Secretary of the Treasury.
    
    “John K. Elgee,
    “By Miles Sells, ■
    
      “Attorney in Fact.
    
    “Glover & Shirley,
    “H. Hitchcock,
    “ Attorneys and counsel for FlgeeP
    
    “Exhibit I.
    “Treasury Department,
    
      “December 6,1865.
    “Sir: Please state an account and make a requisition in tvor. of Benjamin F. Camp upon F. E. Spinner, Treasury gent, to be paid from the proceeds of captured and abandoned roperty, for the sum of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000), be-ig part of the proceeds of certain cotton, known as the Elgee otton, collected as captured or abandoned property by said lamp, for an interest therein; said sum being an advance to aid Camp on account of his expenditures in relation to said otton; and he having given a bond, a copy of which is annexed, o repay said sum of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) on demand of the Secretary of the Treasury, whenever made.
    “Vi. E. Chandler,
    
      “Ass’t Sec'y.
    
    “N; Sargent, Esq.,
    
      Commissioner of CtistomsT
    
    “Exhibit J.
    “Know all men by these presents that we, B. F. Camp and Villiam Prescott Smith, are held and firmly bound to the United hates in the penal sum of sixty thousand dollars, for the pay-uent whereof we bind ourselves, our executors and administra-ors, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents, sealed with iur seals, and dated this fifth day December, eighteen hundred md sixty-five.
    “ The condition, of the above obligation is such that, whereas 3. F. Camp has this day received from the .United States the urn of thirty thousand dollars, being part of the proceeds of :ertain cotton, known as the 1 Elgee cotton,’ collected and sold as abandoned property, which said cotton was collected for t government by said B. F. Camp for an interest therein-,'a. which said sum of thirty thousand dollars has been deliver to said Camp as a part of his said interest for collecting st cotton; and whereas divers claims have been asserted to s? cotton and its proceeds by sundry claimants, and especially one Miles Sells, as the administrator of John K. Elgee, decease
    “ Now, if the said B. F. Camp shall repay the said sum thirty thousand dollars on demand of the Secretary of the Tre¡ ury of the United States whenever made, and" fully indemni the United States against all loss and damage by reason of t payment to him of said sum of money whenever thereunto i quested by the Secretary of the Treasury then this obligati' to be void ; otherwise to remain in full force.
    “Benj. F. Camp. [seal.]
    “Wm. Prescott Smith, [seal.]
    “ Witnesses:
    “M. A. Clancy.
    “Aaron Johns.”
    “Exhibit K.
    “Treasury Department,
    
      “March 7th, 1866.
    “ Sir : Please state an account and make requisition in far of William Prescott Smith upon F. E: Spinner, special agei to be paid from the proceeds of captured and abandoned prc ert-y, for the sum of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000), bei part of the proceeds of certain cotton known as the ‘ Elgee © ton,’ collected as captured or abandoned property by B. Camp, for an interest therein; said sum being an advance said Smith on account of h'is joint interest with said Camp said cotton, and the said Smith having given a bond, a copy which is annexed, approved by the Secretary, to repay said si of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) on demand of the Secreta of the Treasury, whenever made.
    “Wm. E. Chandler,
    
      “Assistant Secretary.
    
    “N. Sargent, Esq.,
    “ Commissioner of Customs.”
    “Exhibit L.
    “ Know all men by these presents that I, William Presc< Smith, am held and firmly bound to the United States in peí sum of thirty thousand dollars, for the payment whereof 1 bi: myself, my executors, and administrators, firmly-by these pr( ents, sealed with my seal, and dated this seventh day of Marc eighteen hundred and sixty-six.
    “The condition of the above obligation is such that, where the said William Prescott Smith, who is jointly interested with B. F'.'Oamp in the proceeds of cotton herein mentioned, has this day received from the United States the sum of fifteen thousand dollars, being part of the proceeds of certain cotton known as the rElgee cotton,’ collected and sold as abandoned property, which said cotton was collected for the government by said B. F. Camp for an interest therein, and which said sum of fifteen thousand dollars has been delivered to said Smith as a part of his interest in the contract for collecting said cottonj and whereas divers claims have been asserted to said cotton and its proceeds by sundry claimants, and especially by one Miles Sells, as the administrator of John K. Elgee, deceased:
    “Now, if the said William Prescott Smith shall repay the said-'sum of fifteen thousand dollars on the demand of the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, whenever made, and fully indemnify the United States against all loss and damage by reason of the payment to him of the said sum of money, whenever thereunto requested by the Secretary of the Treasury, hen this obligation to be void; otherwise to remain in full force,
    “Wji, Prescott Smith, [seal.]
    “ Witnesses:
    “ H. L. Aloott.
    .“M. A. Clancy.”
    
      Mr. Benjamin F. Butler and Mr. O. F. Peck, for the claimant:
    ft is objected on the part of the United States that the con-raot under which Mr. Camp performed these services was not u conformity with regulations, and therefore is not binding. There is no pretense that he did not perform the service, and here can be no reasonable doubt that he did so in good faith nder the belief that his contract was valid.
    What is the legal position of a party who, on the faith of an ivalid ‘contract, faithfully and fully executes all the stipula-ons on his part, and confers all the benefits of the contract pon the other party, who accepts them?
    In this connection it is proper to observe that the United tates has in many ways accepted the benefits of this contract, ad ratified and approved of the acts of the claimant in bring-tg out the property.
    It accepted the cotton and forwarded it to market. It caused to be sold under the stipulation signed by the Secretary of Le Treasury and the Solicitor of the Treasury. It defended ie replevin suit in the circuit court, brought by the former owner, defended the case in the United States Supreme Court, and by these means procured a formal adjudication of its rigl to the cotton. It covered the proceeds of the cotton into it Treasury.
    The Secretary of the Treasury made two payments on accoiu for the services rendered, and in the most formal manner r< peatedly admitted the rights of the claimant. We submit tin no dearer case was ever made out of a contract wholly execute upon one side and the benefits accepted, and all the acts of tl: parties ratified by the other.
    That the doctrine of ratification applies to officers of the go ernment in relation to governmental acts and contracts, s< Grisar v. McDowell, 6 Wall., 379; Neal et al. v. The Unitt States, 14 N. & EL, 285; Mason v. The United States, 4 < 01s. B., 500.
    In such a case the law is plain that if the contract is for an reason invalid the party performing is entitled to recover upon quantum meruit. (Salomon v. The United States, 19 Wall., 1' Clark v. The United States, 95 U. S., 542; Grant v. The Unitt States, 5 0. Ols. B., 85,86; Savage v. The United States, 1 ib., 17( Beeside v. The United Slates, 2 ib ., 1; Burchiel v. The Unit States, 4 ib., 549; Danolds v. The United States, 5 ib., 65; Seat field v. The United States, 8ib., 213; Mudgettr. The United Statt 9 ib., 475.)
    The price agreed upon by the parties in the absence of oth evidence is presumed to be the reasonable value of the servicf (Salomon v. The United States, 19 Wall., 17; Clark v. The Unit States, 95 U. S., 543.)
    
      Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Simons and Mr. F. J. Lip%, for the defendants:
    There was no express contract. No one but the supervisi special agent could contract with the claimant, and he only the manner and under the conditions prescribed in the Trei ury regulations of September 11,1863, which were in force March and April, 1864. (Articles 12,13, pamphlet regulatio: 86, 87 Whitesides’s Case, 93 U. S., 249.)
    There was no implied contract with the claimant, as will manifest on consideration of the relation of the parties and tli acts in the premises.
    As the court must presume that the law was observed rati han that it was violated, Camp must be held to have had the elation, duties, and rights of a local special agent or agency aid mljyif he had any relation to the defendants; and this was the claimant’s own understanding of it, as his acts and declarations ¡how;
    One" who assumes to act for another, without warrant, forcing >n him a service which he has no alternative but to accept, cannot enforce payment therefor. (Edw. Bail., 2 ed., § 441; Renss. Glass Factory v. Reed, '5 Cow., 531; ib. 619,-620 •, Eld-•■idge x. Rowe, 2 Gilman, 91.)
    If, as the evidence tends to show, there was a corrupt agree-nent with Hart, that, in consideration of the appointment given dm, ..Camp was to divide the compensation allowed for his ¡ervice with him, the whole scheme and everything done under t was in fraud of the laws and rights of the defendants, and so incapable of giving rise to a cause of action. Fxturpi causa ion oritur actio. Public policy forbids countenance to such a moceeding. (Br. L. M. 7 ed., 7-33.)
    In Décember, 1865, and March, 1866, $45,000 was paid by she Secretary of the Treasury to Camp and Smith for their illeged- services about the cotton, which is claimed to be a ratification of the contract.
    
    A conclusive objection to this is that there was nothing to ratify, as we have shown that the acts of Camp were those of a nere intruder. But assuming that Hart honestly, but illegally, íad induced Camp to render service on the assurance that the Secretary would allow him at least 25 per cent, of the proceeds }herefor, does it follow that the Secretary by a payment on recount of such service adopts and confirms the assurance of Hart as a binding contract? The determination of this depends m the- circumstances under which the payments were made md the conduct and representations of the claimant. (Whitest Case, 32 Me., 188.)
    Ratification of unauthorized acts must have been with full knowledge of the circumstances to be binding. (4 Sold., 398; 12 ib., 393.)
   Nott, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

Under the regulations of the Treasury, concerning abandoned or captured property and the decision of the Supreme Court in Whitesides’s Case (93 U. S., 247), the arrangement between the Treasury agent and the claimant, by virtue of which the seizure of the Elgee cotton was made, was utterly void. This was conceded by the claimant’s counsel on the hearing, and need not be discussed.

The question then arises upon the doctrine of ratification, which the claimant seeks to apply to the case.

If this had been an ordinary transaction between men, unquestionably the acceptance of the cotton which the claimant brought out, followed by the payment on account thereof and for an interest therein by the Secretary of the Treasury, would have been a ratification of the unauthorized agreement of the clearest and most unequivocal character. The cotton here never belonged to the claimant; he never had a valid lien upon it; his services were entirely voluntary. When he turned it over to the government he had no right to retain it, and G-en-eral Tuttle’s seizure was, in effect, the government’s seizing its own property. Nevertheless, in juivate transactions a similar condition of affairs is often found where there have been voluntary services performed, and there a clear and unequivocal ratification of the unauthorized contract by the principal renders it as obligatory as if it had been entered into by his authority. In this case the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury did not say in words that he ratified the special agent’s agreement, but he did say that the payment which he made to the claimant was a “ part of the proceeds” of the “Elgee cotton” “collected as captured or abondoned property by said Camp ” ; that the payment was “for an interest therein,” and was “an advance to said Camp.” With ah of the facts before the department, .this order of the Assistant Secretary undoubtedly was intended .as a payment upon the original and only agreement under Avhich the claimant had acted, and as a recognition of his, the • claimant’s, interest in the proceeds to the extent of at least 25 per cent, thereof. We can understand that there may have been such cases of voluntary service under unauthorized agreements where the Secretary of the Treasury deemed it to be for the honor of the government to ratify the transactions of his agents, and we are not disposed to question his authority to do so.

What, then, was the agreement which was thus ratified!

It was not a general obligation to pay the claimant for his irvices. From the inception of the system authorized by the bandoned or captured property act to the present time these •ansáctions hare always been considered and treated by the ¡gislative and executive branches of the government as a usin’ess by itself, which was to be self-supporting’ and not to be-ime a charge upon the general Treasury. In law, as in fact, the greement with the claimant was not a contract binding the overnment to pay him for. his services in collecting and bring - ig out cotton, but was simply an agreement to share the pro-seds with him. His case is that of a man who agrees to grow crop-or chop wood or excavate ore for a designated portion of he crop, the wood, or the ore.

Sucli being the contract,'what would constitute a breach by he defendants 7

If I were to agree with a man to grow a crop on his land for .share of it, with the further condition that the whole should amain in his possession until sold by him for our joint benefit,

; would doubtless be a breach for him to convert my share to is own use. But no breach could be imputed to him if the rop, including my portion, were taken from him by the pro-ess of .a court in the suit of a third person; and if I, with a uperior right or equity as to my portion, should stand by and llow the suit to go to judgment raising no objection and inter-osing no defense, I certainly should not be able to set up my wn inaction as a ground for recovering damages from him. aid this is substantially the condition of the claimant’s case. When the agreement with the assistant Treasury agent was ntered into, assuming it now to be valid, it may have been upposed by the parties that the cotton to be brought out muid be quickly sold and the net proceeds readily ascertained nd easily apportioned. But hardly had' the cotton come to lie possession of the government ere the former owner appeared, sserted his title, and invoked the process of a court to regain ossession. The obligation of the government to sell the cot-on and share with the claimant in the proceeds was certainly impended.. As a part of that litigation, apparently with the ssent of the claimant and certainly without objection by him, he government did whatj as custodian of the property and ctual litigant in the suit, it certainly had a right to do — it ntered into a stipulation which provided that the cotton should >e sold, the proceeds be invested in bonds, the bonds be substituted as tlie subject of litigation, and tlie litigation trans ferred to the United States courts.

The time when that litigation ended has not been shown bj either party, though both have referred to it in their requests nor has the ground of the decision been made a matter o evidence. As the facts, however, are well known, and wer< alluded to by counsel on both sides in the argument, we assume for the purposes of this decision, that the suit in the Unitec States courts was decided against Elgee under the decision o the Supreme Court in Mrs. Alexander’s Case (2 Wall., 404) viz, that the only and proper remedy for the owner of cap tured property was a suit for the proceeds in the Court o: Claims, which court alone had full and complete jurisdiction o: the matter. Accordingly the representatives of Elgee, he hav ing died, brought their suit in this court on the 30th March 1868, to recover the whole of the proceeds in the Treasury, ant the litigation which was to determine the rights of Elgee, the rights of the government, and the rights of all other parties claiming the cotton or its avails, proceeded in this court.

It is not necessary for the purposes of this decision to holt that the present claimant acquired by his ratified agreement an interest or special property in the cotton which constituted him an owner within the meaning of the abandoned or captured property act, although the decision of the Supreme Court in Villalonga’s Case (23 Wall. 35), holding that a factor’s' lien was a special property upon which the factor could maintain a suit as owner for his interest in the proceeds, would go far tc justify such a conclusion; but it seems tolerably clear that ii the claimant could have maintained any action against the defendants for his interest in captured property or in its proceeds in the Treasury, while such proceeds were the subject oi litigation, it must have been a suit under that statute.

Be that as it may, the claimant neglected to bring a suit foi his interest in the proceeds, and after the time for bringing such suits had expired he brought his present action upon the contract; that is to say, a personal action against the United States for their alleged non-fulfillment of the contract. Ii seems manifest that when the action was brought, at a time when the owner’s litigation was still pending and undetermined, the defendants were not bound to comply with the claimant’s demand, and were in no sense guilty of a breach of their agree-meat. They were simply the custodians of a fund, in litigation, of which he claimed a part.

Nevertheless, the defendants, as parties litigant in this court, made an attempt to have the claimant Gamp interplead with the other claimants seeking the fund. • He resisted the motion and it was overruled (5 C. Cls. R., 645), but the court when denying it said :

“ The suit of Camp is in effect an action brought against trustees for services rendered to the trust estate. * * * Gamp has brought his action before the trust estate is actually closed, though' not within the two years prescribed by law for closing it, and it may be that he has a good and valid claim against the trust estate. The trustees should not be required to pay over all the proceeds to the cestui que trust and then be held personally liable to Gamp; nor should Camp be left without redress, if his claim be valid and his suit be not barred.
“ It is perhaps needless to add that this opinion does not adjudicate either case upon its own merits, but merely deals with them as they appear upon this motion.
“The motion to interplead must be denied. But when the case of Woodruff shall be tried, if it shall then appear that this case of Camp is still pending, proceedings upon the judgment will be stayed, or a decree directing payment of a part of the proceeds will be rendered, with leave to apply for an order directing the payment of the residue, if any, when the estate shall be.finally closed.”

Neither the defendants nor the claimant Camp availed themselves;, of the remedy indicated when the consolidated cases of Woodruff and Elgee were tried. No motion was made to stay proceedings upon the judgment or to withhold payment of a portion sufficient to meet this demand. On -the contrary, the case went to the Supreme Court, remained pending there for several years before a final decisionwas reached, and during all of these years the claimant remained inactive, neither bringing his present suit to trial nor taking steps to arrest the paying away of the fund in which he claimed an interest.

But the case must be adjudged as of the time when the claimant brought his action. He has not sued for acts or negligen-ces which may have occurred since then. His cause of action s that which existed on that day, and upon that day we think t clear no breach had been committed by the defendants which could give foundation to this suit.

The judgment of the court is that the claimant’s petition be lismissed.