The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-05-31
Us. CIRCUIT COURE-CRIEFJ JUSTICE
S.P. CHASE, PRESIDING.

ment thereon, subject to the plea Of plene ad
natnistrauit; and that the issues under saie
plea be referred to Martin L. Wilkins, as spe
cial referee, to act as master in chancery, te
take the account Of the said executors accord
ing to the principles Of this court under saic
plea of p.ene adnintstacl, in which account
the executors shall not be charged with tht
value Of any negroes, whether in the inyento
~ or not, who have not been converted into
money or any other personal property which
can be proved to have been taken, lost or de
| stroyed by the armed forces of the United
States, or other unavoidable casualty, and thai
the said referee may report to the court every
fact deemed important by either party.
Chief Justice Chase then delivered the fol-
lowing opinion Of the court:
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF SOUTH cARoLINA-oARoL1NE A
JOHNSON AND JOHN A. JOHNSON, TRUSTEES, Vs'
JOHN RICHARDSON, ADMINISTRATOR OF MARY
RICHARDSON.
The only question raised By the plea in this
case is one Of jurisdiction.
The object OF the BILLS to obtain against the
| the defendant, as administrator OF Mary
Richardson, deceased, decree in favor ol
| Caroline A. johnson for her distributlve share
of an estate, which it is alleged has been col.
| lected and is held by him, and for the payment
of q sum Of money due from the lntestate.
The defendant is citizen OF Georgia, but
derives his authority as administrator from
| the grant OF letters Of administration, Dy
the proper court Of South Carolina. Ihe
pIaiut,ffs are citizens OF South Carolina.
The relief sought is against the defendant
| in the capacity Of administrator, and the plea
sets up the fact that the defendant is admins
traitor under the grant OF one OF the states,
| and bound by the law Of the State to account
as such for bis administration OF the estate OF
the deceased, in the courts OF the state, as q
bar to the prosecution Of any suit against MIN
IN the courts of the United States.
There has been much controversy and no
little diversity OF judgment on the question
thus presented both at the bar and on the
bench, and the decisions are by no means har-
monious. Fortunately, We are spared the labor
Of examining the question upon principle, 6y
Supreme Court Of the United States.
In the case Of Payne vs. Hook, not yet re-
ported, Ann Payne, citizen OF vrginla,
brought her suit in equity in tho Circuit Court
for the District OF Missouri, against Paddock
Hook. citizen OF Missouri, and pubic ad;
ministrator Of the county Of the interstate, ana
his sureties on his official bond, for her distri-
butive share Of the estate. A demurrer was
was fled to the bill, and was sustained by the
Circuit Court, and the bill "as dismissed.
The case was taken by appeal to the Supreme
Court.
Il viii be seen from thia statement that the
very question now before us was then brougnt
before the Supreme Court. The court upon
fau argument hello that the suit was properly ~ err!
cult Court. This authority is decisive, and the
plea must be overruled.
Mr.. J.. J. Pope, solicitor for complainant,
made the following motion, which was granted;
The plea fled in the above case by the de-
dendant, John Richardson, administrator,
having been overruled, 1t fs ordered tnat Inc
defendant do file his answer to the above Dill,
on or before the rules day in July next, upon
payment Of the costs Of this term.
Alexander Mcleod vs. T. G. Calicott. J. B.
Campbell. Esq, appeared for plaintiff: D. T..
Corbln, United States District Attorney, for de-
fendant.
This was case for trial by the jury, and an
action Of trover for the recovery OF thirty-mne
bales Of cotton, alleged by counsel for plainnh
to have been wrongtully taken from the posses
sion Of DR.. A. Mcleod, Of Marlboro Dlstrict,by
Mr.. T. @. Calicott, citizen OF New York, and
that the property 80 taken was wroDgtuily
converted by defendant to his own use, and
that without probable cause, right or color OF
law.
Counsel for plaintiff introduced testimony to
show that DR.. Mcleod raised the cotton, was
subjected after the war to an onerous trial by the
Provost Court Of Marlboro District, acquitted,
and the cotton ordered to be released. That
after this, Mr.. Calicott, being fully advised OF
what had occurred, seized the cotton at the de-
Dot Of the Northeastern Railroad Company,
notwithstanding the factor (Mr.. L. D. howry)
went to him, represented the circumstances OF
the case, and asked it's release to him, Offering
to give security, to be approved by Mr.. Cali
cott, II he or the Government Of the United
States or any one represented by them should
ests blish any Just claim to it. Mr. Calicott re-
tanned the cotton, and an application was
made to the Secretary Of the Treasury at
Washington, and upon a statement OF the
facts he ordered its discharge. Counsel for
plaintiff advised their client at the. time not to
comply with the conditions required by the
Secretary OF tho Treasury requiring him (Dr.
McLeod) to state there was probable cause for
the seizure Of his cotton, and MIR. Calicott re-
quired, in addition 10 that, a bond to indem-
nifty himself against damages, g..
On the part Of the defendant, testimony was
introduced to show that Mr.. Cahcott was spe-
cial supervising agent of the Treasury Depart
ment and received this cotton under the pro-
visions OF the act OF Congress OF the 18th OF
March, 1868, relative to captured and abandon
ed property; that he took it under color OF that
act, received it and transmitted it according to
the direction of the Secretary Of the Treasury
to Simeon Draper, the proper special agent at
New York, for sale. Testimony was introduc-
ed to show that the cotton was not DR..
McLeod's; that large portion OF it was sold TO
the Confederate States Government in 1868;
that he had no right to retain it; that be had it
repacked and remarked and forwarded to
Charleston.
Counsel introduced certified official report
OF Mr.. Calicott to the department at Washing
ton On the subject, which report was required
to be made under the act, and that Mr. CALI
colt acted in good tauh and under strict IL
structions of the Treasury Department; also
that the Provost Court had no jurisdiction
over this cotton.
The hearing Of the testimony occupied the