#### WILLIAM R. IRBY, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF GEORGE E. PAYNE, DECEASED, v. THE UNITED STATES.

[No. 34738.

Decided January 9, 1922.]

*On the Proofs.*

*Special act of Congress; Civil War claim.*— The province of a special act of Congress, waiving the statute of limitations and referring a claim to the Court of Claims for adjudication, is to furnish a forum where such claim may be determined upon its merits according to applicable legal principles.

*The Reporter's*statement of the case:

*Mr. Vedantus B. Edwards*for the plaintiff.

*Mr. W. F.-Norris,*with whom was *Mr. Assistant Attorney General Robert H.*Lovett, for the defendant.

The following are the facts of the case as found by the court:

I. The plaintiff’s decedent, George E. Payne, was a citizen of the State of Louisiana during the Civil War. He was loyal to the United States Government and gave no aid nor comfort to rebellion during said war.

II. During said war the said George E. Payne was the owner of a plantation of about 1,982 acres, situated on or near the Mississippi Eiver, in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana, about 29 miles above New Orleans, which was composed of two smaller plantations, one purchased by him in the year 1856 and the other in the year 1860.

III. Between July and December, 1862, United States Army officers, and soldiers under their command, took and carried away from the plantation of the said George E. Payne personal property belonging to him, which could have been used as quartermaster or commissary supplies, amounting in value to $5,180.

*61IV. On November 5,1862, the military lines of the United States were extended to. include said Payne’s plantation. On November 9,1862, Gen. B. F. Butler, in command of the Federal forces in and about New Orleans, issued General Order No. 91, organizing the Sequestration Commission. Shortly thereafter Lieut. Col. Kinsman, a member of said .commission, took possession of said Payne plantation for the commission, and on December 5, 1862, empowered one John S. Woodward to work the same on the basis of one-half of the sugar and molasses to the United States, ail the stock and equipment on the plantation to be kept and turned over by him in as good condition as when he received it.

V. Pursuant, to such authorization the said John S. Woodward, on December 8,1862, took possession of said plantation and made and sold, in 1863, sugar and molasses from the said Payne’s sugar-cane crop of 1862, the net proceeds from which, amounting to $6,688.13, were transferred to the Quartermaster Department and used for the public good. No payment was made to the said George E. Payne on account of said crop of 1862.

On or about February 15,1863, said plantation was turned over to the Quartermaster Department pursuant to orders from the commanding general of the Department of the Gulf. In September, 1863, it, together with other plantations, was turned over to the Treasury Department by the chief quartermaster of the Department of the Gulf, and was receipted for by Benjamin F. Flanders, the supervising special agent of the Treasury Department, at New Orleans, as abandoned and captured property.

The net proceeds from the sugar-cane crop of 1863, amounting to $17,010.83, was turned in to the Treasury Department, and was subsequently upon demand therefor paid to the said George E. Payne.

VII. The said Benjamin F. Flanders, as said Treasury agent, on January 23, 1864, leased said plantation to one William Spear for the year 1864. On January 18,1865, said Flanders leased it or turned it over to the Freedmen’s Bureau, by or under which it was occupied and used until on or about January 1, 1866, when possession of it was deliv*62ered to the said George E. Payne, who had at various times demanded it's return to him.

VIII. It does not appear what rental, if any, was paid for said plantation by the said William Spear for the year 1864, nor does it appear that the Government realized any proceeds or income from it for the years 1864 and 1865. The fair rental value of the plantation for said years 1864 and 1865 was $5,000 per year, or a total of $10,000 for the two years. The said George E. Payne was not paid anything for rental or use and occupation of said plantation for said years 1864 and 1865.

IX. When the Sequestration Commission took possession of the said plantation in November or December, 1862, as recited in Finding IV, it- also took possession of plantation stock, equipment, and supplies thereon amounting in value to $6,710, all of which was such as could have been used as quartermaster or commissary supplies for the military forces. When the plantation was returned to its owner, the said George E. Payne, on or about January 1, 1866, there was on it, and returned to the said Payne, property of similar character of a value of $1,500. It does not appear what became of the $5,270 worth of property which disappeared from the plantation between its seizure by the Sequestration Commission and its return to the said Payne.

Booth, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

A single legal issue is presented by this record. The case comes to the court under the following special jurisdictional act:

“ *Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Répresenta-tives of the United States of America in Congress*assembled, That the claim of the legal representative of George E. Payne, deceased, of New Orleans, Louisiana, for personal property taken by United States officers, and for the crop of sugar sold by the sequestration commissioners, and the net proceeds transferred by them to the Quartermaster’s Department and used for public good, and for the use and occupancy of the plantation of said deceased, taken by United States Army officers and turned over to the United States Treasury agent, and by said agent leased to William Spear for the year 1864, and for the use and occupancy *63bjr the Freedmen’s Bureau for the year 1865, be, and the same is hereby, referred to the Court of Claims of the United States for adjudication, at the fair and reasonable rental and the value of the property taken and used as aforesaid, on the competent evidence heretofore presented and that may be adduced, any statute of limitations to the contrary notwithstanding: *Provided, however,*That it be shown to the satisfaction of the court that said George E. Payne did not give any aid or comfort to the late Civil War, but was throughout the war loyal to the Government of the United States.”

It has been uniformly held that statutes of a somewhat-similar character operate only to furnish a forum for the presentation and adjudication of the claims mentioned, and do not by their terms do more than waive the statute of limitations, and thereby enable the plaintiff to assert his right under the law. The peculiar wording of the above statute indicates a legislative intent to afford the plaintiff a remedy for certain losses. After enumerating in detail the specific subject matter of the claim, and conferring jurisdiction to adjudicate, the statute goes further and expressly directs an adjudication upon the basis of the “ fair and reasonable rental and the value of the property taken and used as aforesaid.” The statute is a remedial one, and in view ■of its numerous provisions clearly evidencing an intent to remedy an alleged loss, we think it clearly susceptible to a ■construction in accord with the judgment awarded.

The proof is sufficient to sustain the claim. The court' has heretofore found the plaintiff’s decedent loyal, and nothing has been shown to authorize a contrary finding. There •can, however, be no recovery for the $5,270 worth of property mentioned in Finding IX; the same disappeared from the plantation, but what ultimately became of it is not •satisfactorily proven.

Under the facts found in Findings III, V,- and VIII, the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment for $21,818.13. It is so ordered.

GRAham, *Judge;*Hay, *Judge;*DowNey, *Judge;*and Caaipbell, *Chief Justice,*concur.