The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-09-02
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

Interesting Cases Growing Out Of the Rebel.
ion-Purchases of Stock Under the Confed.
crate SequestratiOn LAW Null and Void
Seizure Of Cotton by United States Treas.
ury Agents-Charge TO the Jury by the
Chief Justice-Heavv Damages Awarded the
Plaintiff.
The following opinions OF Chief Justice Chase have
just been made publlc:--
PERDICARIS VS.. THE CHARLESTON GAsLIGHr COM
PANY.
/. The Sequestration act OF the Confederate Con.
treated as absolutely null and void, ana court OF
equity will decree such relief In the premises may
O. II corporation fail to bring suit for Its protec
ton, any stakeholder may proceed for his own ben
eft.
CHASE, c. 1.-THE bill in this case was filed by the
paintr in his own behalf and In behalf OF any others
who might come in and contribute 10 the expenses
OF the suit. II ls stated that the shares IN the
Charleston Gasght C0mpany's stock belonging to
the plaintiff and others were sequestrated under an
act Of the Confederate government aud sold during
the civil war 1t Is also stated that In lieu of those
shares other shares OF corresponding amount were
delivered to the purchasers, and the PRAYER OF the
cared TO be invalid; that they may be ordered TO De
delivered up to be cancelled; that the defendants
may restrained from bringing suit for their trans
fer, and that the company may be restrained from
allowing such transfer and from the payment OF
dividends TO TINS bill tnere Is general demurrer
solve the Injunction already granted The only
question In the case is. whether the parties are
case made by the bill. This question is
twofold:-First, whether the plaintiirs have
OF equity ta Sa mas m
and defendants It Is not claimed that the transfer
OF shares sequesered and sold under the authority
OF the Confederate government conveyed exclusive
title to the defendants. 1t mas been repeatedly de-
clded both by Circuit Courts and by the Supreme
federate government or the government OF State
hostile to the United States and preudical to the
rights Of citizens OF states adnering to the Union
are void, ana con tain no title.
Perdlcaris is CITIZEN of an adjoining State. It is
proper TO add that the Gasght Company has acted
upon the principle Just stated. 1t Is true that it
erased from the books the names Of the original
stockholders, whose stock was sold under the Sc
questration act and issued new certificates to the
purchasers. But this was during the war, Since
the war ended 1t has renstated the names OF the
original stockholders. and recognized fully their
TO the purchasers from the Confederate re-
ceiver are, however, still outstanding. Per-
the interpostion Of the court against the defend
ants, who In virtue OF their purchases from the re-
ceiver, assert claim to be recognized as stock
clear that Mr.. Perdicars has good case In equity.
II the whole stock had belonged to stockholders re-
Sequestration act and it can be maintained, after
the war, that the purchasers are entitled 10 recog-
1 1e1S ces e value Of the to the latter would
be reduced Just one-haf This shows very clearly
the equity Of Mr.. Perdcaris. There is no way by
But 1t is insisted that the company itself should
brnr anti ana that Perdicaris, being only stock
holder cannot be heard In this court. We do not
agree to TITS view ss y not denied ,as, That
proceedings The stockholder might do So
There is no principle OF equity adminstra-
ton which denies TO stakeholder protection in
court OF equity. 1t Is true that the corporation
represents the corporate interests and In ths case
it would perhaps, be most appropriate that the cor
porstlon should bring suit for Its own protection
and for the protection Of the rights OF the original
stockholders, but It has at least neglected and
omitted to do SO. Under such circumstances any
stockholder may proceed. We think the bill ned IN
the benefit OF his co-stockhOlders Is properly con-
ceived and that upon the case made by 1t the plain
tifY IL entitled to the relief asked. The demurrer
must be overruled, and the motion to dissolve the
Injunction must be denied. me defendants Will
have leave to answer under the rule.
CARoLISA.-SEIzuRE BY TREASURY AGENTS
WHES UNLAwFUL-RIGHrS AND DUTIES OF SUCH
OFFICIALS.
MLEoD vs. EALICoTT.
Before a Jury.
No agent OF the Treasury Department was justified
In receiving after June 80, 1855, any captured prop
erty unless heretofore surrendered, much less In
making any capture OF unsurrendered property.
Property surrendered by the military authorities Of
the Confederate government to the United states
A Treasury agent, acting under color OF law or
under mistaken sense OF duty, cannot be held
liable In private suit.
The Chief Justice In his charge to the jury, said:
GENTLEMEN OF THE JURy-The District Attorney
has asked for various Instructions, which the Court
will decline TO give; not that We DOUBT the general
correctness VI most OF the legal propositions con-