Case ID: us-ct-cl_19/html/0658-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Richardson, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JOHN R. ELY, THOMAS M. WHITE'S EXECUTORS, ELLISON & HUGHES, JOHN B. LOCKEY, A. R. GOODWIN, S. & J. ERWIN, OWNERS, v. THE UNITED STATES.
    
      On the Facts.
    
    D. & W. are agents and part owners. B. & F. are part owners who have made advances for repairs, &c. ' The vessel is a total loss while in the government service. D. & W. then assume to sell and transfer their own and other owners’ interests in the vessel and debts due her to B. & P. in consideration of their paying her debts. B. & P. then indemnify the government and collect the money which the Treasury Department has awarded for the loss of the vessel. Congress pass a special act for the relief of other owners.
    I.A ship’s agents have no authority as such to sell and transfer “all claims due Ike steamer and otvners.”
    
    II.A sale of all claims due a vessel and her owners is, as an assignment of a claim upon the government for the destruction of the vessel while in its service, void under the restriction of the Revised Statutes, § 3477.
    III. Where the government relies upon an assignment of a claim, the assignor will be estopped from questioning the validity of the assignment ; but where the government requires a bond of indemnity from the assignee and does not rely upon the assignment alone, it leaves open to controversj' its validity.
    IV. If the owners of a claim, subsequent to its collection by persons claiming to be assignees, ratify the transaction for value received, the ratification will be binding though the assignment be void.
    V.The preamble of a private act may be referred to in aid of interpretation, and to give liberal effect to language which if taken literally would operate inequitably.
    VI.Where a private act for the relief of certain claimants directs that reduction be made for money advaneedfor the repairs, &c., of a steamer lost in the government service, the court cannot go beyond the act and allow another set-off.
    VII.Interest as dam ages is controlled by the Revised Statutes, $ 1091, though the action be authorized by a special act.
    
      The Reporters’ statement of tbe ease:
    This action the claimants brought by the voluntary filing of their petition. The following are the facts as found by the court:
    I. The steamer Jackson, built in 1860, was duly enrolled at the port of Aj>alachicóla, Fla., August 30 of that year. In the-spring of 1865 the steamer was owned as follows: Daniel Ery, three-fourteenths; Aaron Barnett, two fourteenths; Davis & Wilson, four-fourteenths ; John R. Ely, one-fourteenth; John B. Locky, one-twenty-eighth; A. R. Goodwin, one-twenty-eighth ; S. & J. Erwin, one-fourteenth; T. & J. M. White,of whom Thomas M. White, now deceased, was supervising partner, one-fourteenth; Ellison & Hughes, one-fourteenth. Said Daniel Ery was the master of the boat, and-Davis & Wilson had been originally appointed agents for the boat, and continued to transact the business as such.
    II. The boat cost between $7,000 and $8,000. At the close of the war she was in such a bad condition that it became necessary to repair her throughout in order to make her safe. And' there were debts legally created against her. The rest of the stockholders being unable to contribute their share of the sum necessary to pay the debts and to repair and to rebuild the boat, said Daniel Fry and Aaron Barnett advanced from their own funds sufficient money therefor. The boat was accordingly repaired in the spring of 1865, at Johnson’s Landing, on the Chattahoochee River, in the State of Georgia. The cost of the repairs, materials, clerk hire, and work and labor, for which the steamer was chargeable, was $11,000, and the amount of previous debts legally created againsther for repairs,material, clerk hire, and work and labor, for which she was liable, was $3,362.58, making in all $11,362.58, which amount, was advanced and paid by said Barnett and Ery. In June, 1865, while in the service of the United States military authorities and on her first trip after being repaired, the steamer was destroyed.
    III. March 20, 1866, Davis & Wilson, assuming to act as agents for all the shareholders, but without their knowledge and without authority to sell the boat and the claims against the government therefor unless such authority resulted from the mere fact of their agency for the boat, executed and delivered to Barnett and Ery the following paper:
    “ Woodville, Ala., March 20, 1866.
    “ This agreement wituesseth that Davis & Wilson, agents for the Mariana and Apalachicola Steam Navigation Company, for themselves and the other stockholdersin said company, for and in consideration that A.. Barnett and Daniel Ery do assume and pay all the outstanding debts and liabilities of the steamboat Jacksonand owners, have this day bargained and sold, and by this agreement doth bargain, sell, and convey, unto the said A. Barnett and Daniel Fry all of the right, title, and interest of themselves and others in said company, including the machinery, hull, and contents, and all other claims due the steamer Jackson and owners.
    “ Witness our hands this 20th day of March, 1866.
    “ Davis & Wilson, Agents.
    
    Witnesses:
    “James A. Clark.
    ■“ H. B. Davis.”
    At the time the above paper was signed there was nothing left of the said steamer but a burned wreck on the bottom of the river, not valued at over $100; and all the debts remained unpaid except as they had been assumed and paid by Barnett ^.and Fry.
    IT. Thereafter Barnett and Fry presented to the Treasury ■Department a claim against the United States for the value of the steamer Jackson, lost in the government service. The collection of this claim was delayed until 1871, and several attor-meys were employed upon contingent fees. The total amount received from the Treasury Department was $36,125; and the total expenses of collection amounted to $25,000, which were paid by Barnett and Fry from the proceeds. What remained «ver and above these expenses was divided between said Barnett and Fry. Upon the receipt of the money by them, the •said Barnett gave to the defendants a bond of indemnity. No demand has been made upon them by either of the present claimants for any share of said proceeds.
    VI. November 30, 1876, the following paper was signed, acknowledged, sworn to, and delivered to said Barnett and Fry 'by John M. F. Erwin, one of the partners of the firm of S. & J. JSrwin:
    “ Tallahassee, Florida, Nov. 3Q, 1876.
    ‘“For valuable consideration, received by us through our agents, Messrs. Davis & Wilson, of the steamer ‘ Jaclcson,’ which was burned in Apalachicola Bay, Florida, July, 1865, while in -.¡the service of the government of the United States, we hereby .ratify the transfer made by the said Davis & Wilson, agents to Barnett and Fry, of any and all interest we then had or now ¡hold in .said steamer.
    “ S. <& J. Erwin,
    “P’ John M. F. Erwin.”
    
      Til. Notice in writing has been served in person upon said Aaron Barnett and Daniel Fry, according to the requirement© of the act of March 3, 1883, chapter 106 (22 Stat. L., 802), and they have refused to appear in the case and make proof as re quired by said act.
    
      Mr. M. L. Woods and Mr. James Lowndes for the claimants.
    
      Mr. George L. Douglass (with whom was the Assistant Attorney-General) for the defendants.
   Richardson, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This action is brought under the provisions of the following-special act of Congress (22 Stat. L., 802, ch. 106):

“AN ACT for the relief of certain owners of the steamer Jackson.
“ Whereas the United States, on the eighteenth day of June,, eighteen hundred and sixty-five, chartered the steamboat Jackson to run on the Chattahoochee River in the service of tlie-United States, and while so employed it was wholly destroyed by fire caused by unavoidable accident; and
“ Whereas the Secretary of the Treasury, on the application of Aaron Barnett and Daniel Fry for payment to them as alleged owners of said steamboat, of the value of the same, adjudged and decided 1 that the steamer Jackson was lost by unavoidable accident while in the military service of the United) States by contract, and that the owners thereof were entitled! to the payment of the value thereof under acls of March third,, eighteen hundred and forty-nine, and March third, eighteen hundred and sixty-three; and
“ Whereas the value of said steamer was duly ascertained by the Treasury Department to be thirty-six thousand one hundred! and twenty-five dollars, which was paid to the said Barnett and Fry, on the execution of the bond of said Barnett as principal and Louis C. Schiffer and Gabriel H. Schiifer as sureties,, in the sum of twenty-six thousand dollars, payable to the United States, and conditioned that if the above bounden obligors* their heirs, executors, administrators, or any of them, shall andi do well and truly pay or cause to be paid unto any person oír persons who shall establish a valid claim to any of the five-fourteenths of the steamer Jackson the full amounts as paid by the United States to the said Barnett and Fry, or shall pay or cause to be paid unto the United States, or their assigns, the-full amounts paid by the United States on account of said five-fourteenths of the said steamer Jackson, with the legal costa. and interest on such sum, without any defalcation or delay, then the said bonds to be void,’ and so forth; and
“ Whereas John It. Ely, John E. Lockey, A. E. Godwin, S. and J. Irwin, Thomas M. White, surviving partner of T. and J. M. White, and Ellison and Hughs, partners or joint owners, claim that they are the owners of said five-fourteenths of said steamer Jackson, in different number of shares, and entitled to their pro rata share of said thirty-six thousand one hundred and twenty-five dollars,amountingto twelve thousandninehundred and one dollars and seventy-eight cents, and have demanded payment of the same from the United States; and
“ Whereas Barnett and Fry deny the ownership of said claimants of said five-fourteenths, and also claim that they, Barnett and Fry, have made payments and advances of large sums of money for and on account of repairs and materials for repairs for said steamer Jackson, which .they are entitled to have deducted from any sum for which they may be liable on said bond, or on account of said payment to them of the said twelve thousand nine hundred and one dollars andseventy-eight cents.
11 Therefore for the purpose of having the real owners of said five-fourteenths of said, steamer Jackson legally ascertained, and to enable the said Barnett and Fry, in the event that said claimants, or any of them, shall establish their right to said five-fourteenths or any part thereof, to show by legal proof what, if any, advances or payments they, or either of them, have made for and on account of any repairs of the said steamer, and legally chargeable against all the owners thereof.
“ Be it enacted, cfie., That John K. Ely, John B. Lockey, A. E. Godwin, S. and J. Irwin, partners or joint owners, and Thomas M. White, surviving partner of T. and J. M. White, and Ellison and Hughs, partners or joint owners, be, and they are hereby, authorized within six months, and not thereafter, after the passage of this act, to bring suit in their joint names in the Court of Claims against the United States, and that said Court of Claims shall have jurisdiction of said suit to hear and determine the same for the purposes aforesaid, and to try all issues joined between the parties thereto in relation to the owner hip of the five-fourteenths of the said steamer Jackson, and determine the right of the said plaintiffs, or any of them, thereto, and to the said twelve thousand nine hundred and one dollars and seventy-eight cents, the value thereof.
“ And also to try and determine all issues in relation to any payments or advances made by Barnett and Fry, or eithér of them, for and on account of any debt legally created against said steamer Jackson, for repairs, material, clerk hire, or work and labor, for which the said steamer was liable in law or equity;
“ And should tlie said plaintiffs, ox any of them, establish their right to said five-fourteenths, or the said value thereof, or any portion of the same, and should it be shown by legal proof that said Barnett and Fry, or either of them, have made payments or advances for repairs, materials, clerk hire, or work and labor, for which said steamer was chargeable in law or equity, the said court shall render judgment against the United States and in favor of each of said claimants for so much of said twelve thousand nine hundred and one dollars and seventy-eight cents as the proof may show each to be entitled, less the amount the proof may show the said Barnett and Fry, or either of them, have paid or advanced for and on account of said steamer as aforesaid;
“And the said court shall cause notice in writing to be served in person upon said Aaron Barnett and Daniel Fry, in whieh shall be stated the commencement of said suit by said plaintiffs, and the cause thereof, and requiring them to appear at said court and establish, if they can, by legal proof, their ownership of said five-fourteenths of said steamer Jackson, and also what payments or advances they, or either of them, have made for and on account of repairs, material, or work and labor, for which said steamer was liable.
“ Approved March 3,1883.”

The steamer Jackson was lost while in the employment of the United States, and there was awarded to the owners by the Treasury Department the sum of $36,125. This amount was all paid to Barnett and Fry, who were the undisputed owners of five-fourteenths, and who claimed to be owners of the remainder by assignment. They gave a bond of indemnity to the defendants upon such payment.

The act authorizes parties who were the original owners of five-fourteenths .to bring this action to be here tried upon two issues •, first, in relation to the ownership of the shares claimed. by them and their right to proportionate parts of the sum so awarded; and, second, in relation to any payments or advances made by Barnett and Fry, or either of them, for and on account of any debts legally created against said steamer for repairs, material, clerk hire, or work and labor, for which said steamer was liable in law or equity.

If the claimants, or any of them, establish their ownership, and said Barnett and Fry prove payments and advances by them as aforesaid, the court-is authorized to render judgment against the United States for so much of their respective shares as the proof may show each to be entitled, less the amount said Barnett and Fry, or either of them, have paid or advanced as aforesaid.

1. The first question, then, is as to the ownership of the steamer, or of the claim against the government at the time the payment was made to Barnett and Fry.

Barnett and Fry claimed title to the whole under the following assignment, made after the vessel was destroyed and before the date of the award for its loss:

“Woodville, Ala., March 20th, 1866.
“ This agreement witnesseth that Davis & Wilson, agents for the Marianna and Apalachicola Steam Navigation Company, for themselves and the other stockholders in said company, for and in consideration that A. Barnett and Daniel Fry do assume and pay all the outstanding debts and liabilities of the steamboat Jackson and owners have this day bargained and sold, and by this agreement doth bargain, sell, and convey, unto the said A. Barnett and Daniel Fry all of the right, title, and interest of themselves and others in said company, including the machinery, hull, and contents, and all other claims due the steamer Jackson and owners.
“Witness our hands this 20th day of March, 1866.
“Davis & Wilson, Agents

Davis & Wilson were the owners of four-fourteenths, but their rights are not involved in this case, as they are not authorized by the act to bring an action and are not claimants herein.

As to all other owners of the steamer and the claim against the government for its loss, we have no doubt that the assignment was without force, for two reasons; first, as ship’s agent merely Davis & Wilson had no authority to make such a contract, sale, and transfer; and, second, because as an assignment of a claim against the United States before warrant issued is void both as between the parties and as against the defendants under the provisions of Revised Statutes, section 3177. (Gill’s Case, 95 U. S., 407; Spofford v. Kirk, 97 U. S., 484.)

If Davis & Wilson had authority to make the assignment for any of the owners but themselves, and the defendants, relying upon it, had paid the money on the faith of it, without objections from such owners, the claimants might have been es-topped from thereafter demanding any part of the money from the United States (Bailey’s Case, 15 C. Cls. R., 491). The defendants, however, did not rely upon the assignment alone, but took a bond of indemnity from Barnett, thus leaving open to controversy the assignment as to all parties interested.

After the money was paid, S. & J. Erwin, owners of one-fourteenth, by one of the firm, gave the following ratification of the assignment:

“Tallahassee, Florida, November 30, 1876.
“For valuable consideration, received by us through our agents, Messrs. Davis & Wilson, of the steamer ‘ Jackson,’ which was burned in Apalachicola Bay, Florida, July, 1865, while in the service of the Government of the United States, we hereby ratify the transfer made by the said Davis & Wilson, agents, to Barnett and Fry, of any and all interest we then had or now hold in said steamer.
“S. & J. Erwin,
“P’ John M. F. Erwin.”

This they had a right to do, and it is a binding ratification of the payment of their share to Barnett and Fry, and they are estopped from setting up any further claim thereto against the United States.

This leaves the remaining owners of four fourteenths the right to recover their respective shares of the money awarded,, less the deductions required by the act under which they sue.

2. The next question is as to the amount to be deducted from the shares of the claimants who have proved ownership.

Barnett and Fry advanced and paid, debts and other expenses, authorized to be proved and deducted, to a greater or less extent, from the claimants’ shares, the sum of 114,362.58. The defendants contend that the provision of the act which directs the court to enter judgment in favor of each claimant for so much of the amount paid by the defendants to Barnett and Fry as the proof may show each to be entitled, “less the amount the proof shows the said Barnett and Fry, or either of them,, have paid or advanced for and on account of said steamer as aforesaid,” makes the shares of the claimants, whose ownership is proved to the extent only of four-fourteenths, subject to a deduction of the whole amount so paid or advanced, without reference to the other shares.

If this be the true construction of the act then the claimants-would recover nothing, because their shares of the award amount only to $10,321.43, while the payments and advances-are more than $14,000.

The defendants stand upon the strict letter of that part of the act which we have quoted. Taken by itself the language there used, might seem to give some slight plausibility to that argument, but when read in connection with other parts of the act, and with the preamble, which may be referred in aid of the construction of the act (Beard et al. v. Rowars, 9 Pet., 301; Copeland v. The Memphis and Charleston Railroad Company, 3 Wood, 661), it becomes clear that such an interpretation is not warranted.

The tenor of the whole act shows that the payments and advances made by Barnett and Fry were first to be deducted from the amount collected by them, and that the claimants were to have their proportion of the balance, according to their shares in the ownership of the vessel. Such was the explanation given by the Senate Committee on Claims, who reported the bill, and, in our opinion, it correctly interprets the act. (Beport No. 256, Forty-seventh Congress, first session.)

The defendants further contend that the cost of collecting the award from the government, paid or allowed by Barnett ■and Fry, or a proportional part of it, should also be deducted from the claimants’ share.

The act does not so provide, but on the contrary limits the deduction to advances and payments on account of debts and costs for repairs, materials, cleric hire, and worlc and labor. In determining the amount of the judgment we cannot go beyond the act to allow other and different set-offs.

The claimants ask for interest on the balance found due them of the money received by Barnett and Fry. This cannot be granted, because it is not expressly authorized by the act, and section 1091 of the Bevised Statutes declares that “noin-terest shall be allowed on any claim up to time of the rendition •of judgment thereon by the Court of Claims, unless upon a contract expressly stipulating for the payment of interest.”

There is nothing in this case which takes it out of the general provision against the allowance of interest by this court.

Judgment will be entered in favor of John B.Elyfor $1,551.47; of the executors of Thomas M. White for $1,554.47; of the firm -of Ellison & Hughes for $1,554.47, and in favor of John B. Hockey and A. B. Goodwin, each for $773.23, and the petition will be dismissed as to S. & J. Erwin, who have failed to prove •ownership.