#### RUTHERFORD’S CASE. R. A. Rutherford et al. *v.*The United States.

*On the Proofs.*

*In the summer of*1865 *there is shipped from Broionsville to Neiv Orleans a large-quantity of cotton in hales and saelss. It is reloaded in New Orleans. A portion*is *sequestrated there hy legal proceedings. The remainder is sold, partly there, and partly in New Yorlc. The claimants now bring suit as joint owners of twenty-seven lóales of this cotton eaptwred at Broionsville in May,*1865, *and their petition prays judgment without reference to their several interests in the fund. The evidence shows the purchase of some of the cotton hy one of the parties and some hy the other in their individual names, but that it was all delivered to their carrier as their joint property. **

I. The court now fixes the rate per bale of the proceeds of cotton captured at Brownsville and shipped thence to New Orleans in the summer of 1865.

II. Where it appears hy the evidence that cotton was purchased in the individual names of the parties, hut that it was all delivered to their cameras their joint property immediately before capture, they may maintain a suit under the *Abandoned or captured property Act*as joint owners, and judgment will he rendered accordingly, leaving it to them to settle their-respective rights between themselves.

*The Reporters’*statement of the case:

Investigation by the court in the cases of *Match*and *Odomr*referred to in the opinion in this case, showed that there were shipped from Brownsville, in the summer of 1865, five hundred and fourteen hales and four hundred and eighty-nine sacks of cotton, being equal to five hundred and sixty-three bales; In New Orleans this was reduced in rebaling to five, hundred and twenty-three bales. Of these seventy-nine hales were sequestrated by order of the United States circuit court in the suit of' *McMahon*v. *Flanders ;*one hundred and five were sold in New *482Orleans for $14,180.71, and three hundred and thirty-nine were sold in New York, bringing $58,574.89. But the seventy-nine bales sequestrated were a portion of the five hundred and twenty-three as reduced by the rebaling, and hence were equivalent to eighty-five bales of the original five hundred and sixty-three. A balance was thus arrived at of four hundred and seventy-eight bales, represented by a fund of $72,755.81, giving as the price per bale $152.20.

*Mr. Thomas J. Durant*for the claimants.

*Mr. Alexander Johnston*(with whom was the *Assistant Attorney-General)*for the defendants.

Nott, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimants sue as *"joint owners of twenty-seven bales of cotton,”*captured at Brownsville, Texas, on the 31st May, 1865; and their petition prays judgment for the proceeds of the •twenty-seven bales without reference to their several interests •in the fund. Such suits have repeatedly been brought in this court, and such judgments have repeatedly been rendered, leaving it to the parties to settle their respective rights between éhemselves.

The evidence here shows the purchase of some of the cotton by one of the parties, and some by the other, in their individual names, but that it was all delivered to their carrier in Tra•vis -County, Texas, as their joint property, and so receipted for by him.

The cotton formed a part of the lot of 563 bales shipped from Brownsville to New Orleans in the summer of 1865, and the proceeds have been ascertained in *Malch*and *Odom’s Cases*(not reported) to be $152.20 per bale.

The judgment of the court is, that the claimants recover the proceeds in the Treasury of twenty-seven bales of cotton, captured at Brownsville, Texas, being $152.20 per bale, amounting in the.aggregate to $4,109.40.