Case ID: us-ct-cl_6/html/0381-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Loring-, J., delivered tbe opinion of tbe court:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CRAMER & CO.’S CASE. A. F. Cramer et al. v. The United States.
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    
      A \business firm before the war has its chief business office in Maryland,, with a branch, managed by one partner, at Mariinsburgh, now in West Virginia. While Mariinsburgh is held by the rebels in 1863, the resident partner gives partnership funds to an agent and directs him to invest them in cotton. When Martinsbivrgh] next comes within the United States limes, the resident partner returns to Maryland. Subsequently the agent buys cotton, which is ultimately captured. There is no intercourse across the military lines bekveen either the partner and his firm, or the agent and the firm.
    
    "Where the chief business office of a mercantile firm is in a loyal State, with a branch and resident partner in the insurrectionary districts, the firm cannot, through the resident partner, appoint an agent after the rebellion has begun, to buy property with partnership funds; ‘and no valid title to such property can thereby bo acquired. Such an agency would be constructive commercial intercourse between enemies.
    
      Mr. George 8. Pcvrlcer for the claimants:
    Martinsburgh, in Berkeley County, West Virginia, belonged to the insurrectionary State of Virginia until March 10th, 1866, (14 Stat. L., p. 350.) A. F. Cramer, who resided there until the autumn of 1862, is to be considered in tbis action as the real agent of A. F. Cramer & Co., and not W. H. Morrison, who was the sub-agent of A. F. Cramer. The distinction is important, as it shows that Qrossineyer's Case affects the claim favorably, and not adversely. (9 Wall., p. 71.) According to the opinions, both of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States, A. F. Cramer, being an agent appointed before the war, and resident then and at the time of the act, which is the ground of the present claim, in an insurrec-tionary State, could, properly, without thereby excluding himself or his principals from favorable judgment under the Act March 12th, 1863, invest the funds, collected in insurrection-ary districts, in such a form as would be valueless in loyal districts, in the j>roducts of the former localities for the benefit of his principals, to abide the event of the war. The non-intercourse act of July 13,1861, was in no way violated, as no goods, nor their value in any shape, crossed the line of separation, nor was any attempt toward that result made before the said act was rendered inoperative by executive proclamation in 1865.
    The following cases, favorably decided by this court, may be quoted as analogous .to that of the petitioners: Foley's Case, (3 0. Cls. R, p. 53,) wherein it was held that “the purchase of cotton in Charleston, prior to the capture of Savannah, by a loyal merchant in the ordinary course of his business, and for an adequate consideration, and with the intent of providing for his northern creditors at the close of the war, is valid and the object commendable.” SudnaVs Case, (3 0. 01s. R., p. 291.) In this case the claimant, rather than take an oath of allegiance to the government of the so-called Confederate States, left his residence in Texas in the year 1861, and went to Mexico, leaving an agent behind him to collect any sums due to him and to invest them in cotton. The agent attempted to transport the cotton thus purchased into Mexico in the year 1863. The cotton was seized, as it approached Brownsville, by the United States troops, and sold for the benefit of the Quartermaster Department. The proceeds, having been subsequently transferred by the Secretary of War to the captured and abandoned property fund, were restored to the claimant by judgment of this court.
    The fact that the cotton in question was actually purchased iii 1863, at a time when each claimant was a resident of a loyal State, should not affect the claim unfavorably, as the funds with which Morrison purchased it were placed in his hands, while A. F. Cramer, by whose instructions generally given he acted, was still a resident of an insurrectionary district, and such funds were never in a loyal district, nor crossed the separating line.
    A. F. Cramer has sufficiently proved his loyalty in the evidence submitted, and his voluntary abandonment of his residence in a disloyal State and his removal to a loyal one is justly to be considered a strong declaration of his loyal sentiments.
    The seizure by the treasury ag’ent of the twenty bales of cotton, held as the property of the claimants by the warehousemen on the evidence of their own records and of the receipts presented by the claimants alone, which by custom were always recognized as the true proof of ownership, is clearly proved. Said agent’s report that it belonged to the “ Georgia Importing and Exporting Company” is a bare assertion, of which he never offered any proof, nor does the Treasury Department possess any. The cotton never was tainted by the possession of the public authorities of the confederacy, as the warehouse receipt shows the purchase from the original planter by the vendors to the claimants.
    The Treasury Department acknowledges that it holds the proceeds of two hundred and eighty-five bales of unidentified cotton shipped by its agent, W. F. Alexander, as having been collected by Mm, together with others given away or sold to pay expenses on the whole, and the connection of the twenty bales in question with said shipment is proved as well as the irregular proceedings of said agent will permit, and certainly with sufficient clearness to warrant an award to the claimants of the average proceeds.
    Mr. Alexander Johnston (with whom was the Assistant Attorney General) for the defendants.
    The claimants, Lloyd Lowndes, A. M. Q. Cramer, and A. F. Cramer, composed the firm of A. F. Cramer & Co., which firm, during the late rebellion, was engaged in business in the city of Cumberland, in the State of Maryland. During the whole time' of the war of the rebellion the said Lloyd Lowndes resided in Clarksburg, án tlie State of West Virginia, and the said A. M. C. Cramer resided in Cumberland, in the State of Maryland; A. F. Cramer resided in Martinsburgh, in West Virginia, until the fall of 1SC2, when he removed to Cumberland, Maryland, where he resided until the close of the war. The said firm had a branch store in Martinsburg until April, 1862, when the said A. F. Cramer sold out their said branch store, and discontinued business in Martinsburgh.
    Cumberland, in Maryland, and Olarksburgh, in West Virginia, were at all times during the war of the late rebellion within the linlgs held and occupied by the national forces engaged in the suppression of the rebellion. During a portion of the year 1861 the national forces occupied Martinsburg, and during another [portion of 1861, and up till about the 1st of March, 1862, the insurgent forces occupied that place. From about the 1st of March, 1862, till some time in August, 1862, the national forces were in possession of Martinsburg. In the lat- ■ ter part of that month the insurgent forces gained possession of the place, and retained possession until the 1st of October, 1862.
    The case is clearly within the. ruling of the Supreme Court in Grossmeyer’s Case, (9 Wall., jp. 71.) The claimants, in making the purchase of the cotton, were carrying on. intercourse with the public enemy. That this was unlawful needs no argument.
    The possible answer that A. F. Cramer was within the enemy’s country when the money wras placed in the hands of Morrison to purchase the cotton, will not avail the claimants j because, first, it does not appear where Cramer was when he remitted the money to Morrison, at Eichmond or Baleigh; second, the firm suing was located at Cumberland; and, third, the claimants were all within the national jurisdiction at the time the cotton was purchased.
    If it be held that the transaction between Cramer and Morrison was not.one between enemies, this will only avail him. As to the other parties it was clearly intercourse with the enemy.
    A judgment in favor of A. F. Cramer could not be given in any event. He has not proved that he has at all times borne true allegiance to the government of the United States, nor that be bas not voluntarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against tbe said government.
    It is not proved that tbe cotton was sold, nor that tbe proceeds are in tbe treasury.
   Loring-, J.,

delivered tbe opinion of tbe court:

Tbe suit is brought by tbe firm for tbe property of tbe firm; and, on tbe facts found, tbe locality of tbe firm, as a trader, was in Maryland, where and under tbe laws of which its mercantile bouse was established. This fixe's tbe nationality of tbe firm, as to which tbe locality of any branch of its business is immaterial. Tbe result is that tbe firm, established in loyal territory, by its agent, a disloyal person, appointed during tbe war, purchased tbe cotton in tbe disloyal State of Georgia. This was trading with tbe enemy, and tbe case is within tbe decision of tbe United States v. Grossmeyer, (9 Wall., 72.)

It was contended for tbe claimants that Morrison was tbe agent of A. F. Cramer, individually, and that be acted as tbe agent of tbe firm, appointed before tbe war; so that tbe case was of an agent appointed before tbe war ancl acting in it in tbe collection of debts. We think tbe evidence shows that A. F. Cramer, as a member of tbe firm, and by bis authority as such, used its property in a transaction of which be was to share tbe profit or loss’ with its other members. This is proved by tbe petition, in which be is a jiarty to this suit.

Tbe judgment of tbe court is that tbe petition be dismissed.

Drake, O. J., and Nott, J., dissented upon tbe ground that there being no actual communication across tbe military lines, it was immaterial where the principal office or place of business of -the firm was situated, and that it was tbe right and duty of tbe resident partner to save tbe partnership fund by investment.