The Nashville daily union. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1862-1866, 1864-01-30
IMPORTANT SUIT AqArSsr ApAvs Ex

Bland against the Adams Express Com,
pany, for the recovery of s. 279, which
was seized by John Morgan while being
conveyed by said company from this city
to Nashville, in May, 1862, was heard
and, after lengthy argument By the learn.
ed counsel, the case was submitted to the
court. AT The same time q suit was
broaght by w. 0. Smith against the Elk
press Company for the recovery Of S575
seized by Capt Hines, at Elizabethtown
in the fall of 1862 Judge Muir has since
had the case under advisemeni, and be
on Tuesday rendered bis decision il the
Bland case. The cases are similar, and
the same opinion applies 10 both. The
point decided is chat guerrillas are COM
mon enemies, and as such = common car
rier is not responsible for goods seized by
them. This decision is very important
one, as millions Of dollars are involved in
it. We are informed by the counsel for
the plaintiff that they viii carry the case
before The Court of Appsals.-LOu. Jour-
The following is the opinion delivered
by Judge Muir:
Arthur Bland, Plaintiffl
vs.. JEFF Cir. Court.
Adams Express Co. Day
On the 10th day of May, 1862, the de-
PENDANT = common CARRIER from Louis
vile to Nashville, agreed with the plain
tiff to forward from Louisville 10 Nash
vile 3 package containing $4,000
The usual money receipt was given at
the time by the defendant to the plain
tiff. Having failed to deliver the pack
age to the cOnsignee, or TO return the
same to the cOnsignor, this suit was in
! stituted to recover the above amount, in
terest and damages.
The defendant pleads that he under
took in good faith TO comply with his
contract by placing the package in an
iron safe and shipping it, in charge of
competent and reliable agent, upon the
Louisville and Nashville railroad on the
11th of May, 1862 That the cars pro-
ceeded from Louisville ea route to Nash
vile, without interruption, until they
reached Woodland Station" near Cave
/ City, where they were stopped by large
and overwhelming force of armed "Con-
fedarate" soldiers, under The command of
John Morgan. That all, or nearly al,
the passenger cars in the train were de-
stroyed, and the money package afore-
said then and there fOrOibly taken from
the agent of defendant by said Morgan
and the military force under bis COM
mand. Defendant also pleads that the
Louisville and Nashville railroad fur
nished the only means used By defen-
dant in their carrying trade between
those points, and that this fact was
known to plaintiff when the contract was
made. And further, that public waF
was at that time raging between what is
known as the Confederate States" and
the government of the United States, snd
that Morgan and the forces under his
command We're part Of the army of the
Confederate States.
The aveFments of the answer are sus-
tSined by the proof; and the law and
facts having been submitted 20 the court
without the Intervention Of jury, the
question for decision is-Do the facts
pleaded end proven By defendant excuse
bis failure 10 deliver the package Of mon
ey TO the consignee at Nashville accord !
ing TO The terms Of tho contract?
That the adams Express Company" |
is a common carrier, and legally liable |
as such upon this contract, has not been /
disputed.
By long and well established rule of |
law common carriers are held response /
bic as Insurers, and are only excused when /
losses occur by acts Of God, or of the
'pubIic enemies" And the question arises.
were Morgan and the Confederate sol
diers, who captured that money package
in controversy, "public enemies" within
the meaning of the above rule This
though an important, is not esteemed a
very doubtful question. The answer to
it will dispose of this controversy.
The term "enemies'' whenever used in
the Constitution of Kentucky, certainly
means "alen enemies, has exclusive
reference {, " foreigners" aud cannot be
held to signify or include "rebellious
citizens" Nor does the term war"
used in the Federal Constitution, have
any reference whatever to hOstilities be-
tween this Government AID any number
of its citizens It has exclusive refer
euce to national conflicts with foreign
and independent governments. And yet
there must be war, in some shape or
other, else there can be no "public enc
mics"
But does it follow because the term
" war" ss used in the Fedreal Constitu-
ton, signifies a contest with some foreign
power, and the term enemies" when
used 10 that instrument, or IN the Con-
of this State, means alien en-
emies " only, that therefore, an armed
and organized force Of our own citizens
can never commit acts of Wsr" and
thereby become "publie enemies" with
in the meaning Of the exception in favor
Of carriers In civil war, such az Ours
must be regarded, the citizen may take
the character Of "public enemy" and
NAV be 30 treated by every department
of the government and By society at
large. whilst hostilities exist. The South
ern rebellion, long before the cOntrsci be-
tween these parties, had far transcribed
the bounds Of mere instruction and
" taken the shape Of war" And when
the character of "public enemies" though
they were not foreigners or alien enc
mics" It must be assumed that the
character thus taken was known to both
the parties to this suit, and that their
contract was made in view Of this fact
The parties certainly had good reason 50
70 reg ard them since 0es claim 70 be en-.
gagged in war, aad the government has
recognized their claim and treated them
IS belligerents aad public enemies"
The assumed character must Of course
cease with the end Of the unhappy con-
aict. II they shall be successful, peace
will put an end to their relations as
Il enemies" Ifthey shall be vsDquishsd,
and civil authority be again restored
throughout the rebellious district, then
the character Of enemy" viii instantly
sink into that Of the eriminsl--or rather,
this two fold character having from the
eoexisted in each Of them, the
a.