Case ID: us-ct-cl_3/html/0053-01.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

Bartholomew Foley v. The United States.
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    
      A merchant in “the clothing and, shoe business” at Charleston has his business broken up by the war. During the year 1864 he hiys cotton at various times. The last purchase is prior to the fall of Savannah, and in the ordinary course of his business. His chief object is to secure money at the close of the war with which to pay his northern creditors. He proves that he never took an oath of allegiance to the confederacy, that his expressed sentiments were in favor of the United States, that he freed two slaves rather than have them work on confederate fortifications, and that he contributed food and clothing to General Prentiss and other Union prisoners.
    
    I. Expressed sentiments of loyalty, as avoidance to take tie confederate oath of allegiance, freeing slaves so that they should not work on confederate fortifi cations, and contributions and kindness shown to Union prisoners, are satisfactory evidences of loyalty.
    II. 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.
    Messrs. Cooley and Clarke for the claimant.
    The Assistant Solicitor for the defendants.
   Nott, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an action brought to recover the proceeds of 2 bales of sea-island and 201 bales of upland cotton, captured at Charleston; the residue of proceeds in the treasury amounting, as the claimant alleges, to $52,873 11.

The claimant was a naturalized citizen of the United States, and during the war resided at Charleston. Before the war he was a merchant in “ the clothing and shoe business.” He opposed the secession movement and openly condemned it. He owned eight slaves, but none of them worked on fortifications, and when two were sent for by the rebel authorities he gave them their freedom rather than let them go. He never subscribed to confederate loans, nor contributed in any way to support the rebellion, nor took an oath of allegiance to the confederacy. He made contributions to the Sisters of Mercy for the Union prisoners, and gave money, shoes, and clothing to G-enerals Prentiss, Milroy, Corcoran, Major Dempsey, and others.

After the war came, his former business was broken up and he bought cotton. In his own words he “ owed money in New York, knew the confederacy could not last, that its money would be worth nothing, and I bought the cotton with it to have something with which I could pay my debts and start on in my business after the war.” The cotton so bought appears on the books of the quartermaster’s “ registration booh ” of Charleston cotton, marked “ To be used in payment of northern debts, to Taylor $f Sons, Albany, N. Y., and others.” This cotton was purchased by the claimant at various times during the year 1864, the last purchase being December 22 — just before the capture of Savannah. After the capture of Charleston, it was taken possession of by the defendants, and its proceeds are now in the treasury of the United States. The “residue,” as appears by the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, is $237 64 per bale for the sea-island and $131 20 for the upland.

On these facts we are entirely satisfied as to the claimant’s right to recover. His loyalty seems to he free from suspicion; the purchases were in the ordinary course of his business, and the object was in the highest degree commendable.

The judgment of the court is that a decree be entered in favor of the claimant for the residue of the proceeds of—

2 bales of sea-island. $475 28

201 bales upland. 26,371 20

Amounting in all to. 26,846 48