The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-06-07
ALEXANDER MCLEOD VS.. T. c. oA1Icorr.

| GROUNDS assigned are tudG tuo feIuiCI we
contrary to the charge Of the court. The court
left to the jury the question Of the good faith
of Calicott as an officer of the government in
tending the honest exercise OF his functions in
the seizure of the cotton. We also left to tie
Jury the question whether the cotton ltsel1
was part OF that surrendered by the military
authorities OF the Confederate s:s!!eo Government
Upon the second question, we think the
fipding was clearly right. 1t is not impossible
that this cotton was in fact the property OF the
Confederate Government during the rebellion,
and included in the surrender made by the
Generals of the Confederate armies at the con.
clusion of hostiGties. 1t is enough 10 say that
no evidence to thus effect was offered to the
iury, But there was some OF contrary ten
dency.
IL was, therefore, clearly seizure unwar-
ranted of law. The only question was whether
MIR. Cacott was protected BY his official char
acter. We thought he was, If he was acting
IN good faith, in the exer'ise of his authority
,s supervising agent, though mistaken as 10
the character of the cotton. The question OF
good faith-of honest mlstake-was left. and,
we think, properly left to the jury. We thought
that the evidence taken altogether warranted
a verdict in favor Of the defendant, and should
have been quite satisfied had such verdict
| been rendered.
We cannot say that there was no evidence
that warranted the conclusion OF the jury.
Townsends statement admitted BY the Dis
trict Attorney, was that Calicott told him
that he knew he had no authority to make
the seizure, that he was willing to take
5000, or some such sum, and release the cot
ton. There was testlraf nv also which showed
an omission in Calicott's report to the Secre-
tary of the Treasury Of an important part OF
the correspondence between himself and the
counsel Of the defendant. And there was eyi
depce also that when the whole matter had
been submitted to the Secretary OF the 1rea-
sury. and he had directed that the cotton
should be released upon the defendant giving
the usual certificate Of probable cause. Cali
colt required, as ON additional condition Of re-
lease, bond OF indemnity to himself.
The Jury might possibly have inerr ed, from
ell these things, that Calicott was not sctDg
| in good faith. BE cannot say that conclusion
was wrong.
Upon the whole evidence, and we do not 60
into that in favor OF the defendant, our conclu.
| sion was the other way. But, the matter OF
fact was fairly left to the jury, and was pecu-
| llarly within their province.
| we cannot set aside their verdict because
| the Jury did not agree with us as to the pre-
ponderance of tho evidence.
The motion for new trial will be overruled.
q. A. pERp1oAn1s vs. THE CHARLESTON GAS.
LIGHT COMPANY EFT AL.
The bill in this case was filed blythe plain
|
others who might como in. and contribute to
the expenses Of the suit.
1t is stared that the shares in the Char lesion
| Gasllght Company's stock, belonging to the
plaintiff and others. were sequestered under an
act Of the Confederate Government, and sold
during the civil war. 1t is also stated that in
lieu of those shares, other shares OF corres-
ponding amount were delivered to the pur-
chasers, and the prayer OF the bill is. that the
certificates thus issued may DO declared IN
valid; that they may be ordered to be deliver
el up To be cancelled; that the defendants may
| be restrained from bringing suit for transfer;
and that the company may be restrained from
| allowing such transfer, and from the payment
of dividends.
To this bill there is general demurrer, filed
| by part Of the defendants, and motion to
| dissolve the Injunction already granted.
The only question in the cas- is whether the
parties are entitled to any relief in this court
upon the case made by the bill. This question
is two fold: fret, whether the plaintiffs have
case of equity: second, whether this court has
| Jurisdiction OF the controversy between the
plaintiff and defendants
It is not claimed that the transfefof shares,
sequestered and sold under the authority OF
the Confederate Government, conveyed excln-
sive title to the defendants. II has been re-
peatedly decided, both by the Circuit Courts
and by the Supreme Court OF tho United
ernm .nt, or the government Of State hostile
to the United States and prejudicial to the
rights of citizens Of States adherinS to the
Un on are void, and convey no title.
Perdi .aris is q citizen Of an adjoining State.
1t is proper to add that the Gasllsht Com
pany has acte upon tie principle just stated.
| 1t is true that it erased from the books the
names of the original stockholders whose stock
was sold under the seuuestratlon act, and lssu.
ed new certificates to tho purchasers. But
this was during the war. Since the war ended,
| it has relnstated the names of the original
| stockholders. and recognized fully their right
| to dividends. The certItic ties issued TO the
purchasers from tho Confederate receiver are,
however. still outstanding.
Perdicaris. as owner of original stock. claims
the inc-position OF the court against the de-
| PENDANTS, who, in virtue OF their purchases
from the receiver. assert claim to be recoS-
nized rs stockholders upon an equality with
himself.
1t is very clear that Mr.. Perdears has q
Good case in equity. If the whole stock had
belonged to stockholders residing in other
States, and had been sold Under the sequesira-
tou act, and it can bo maintained, after the
war, that the purchasers are entitled to recog.
uition equally with the original stockholders,
1t is very Gear the value OF the stock, to the
latter, would be reduced just onc-hali.
This shows very clearly the equity of Mr.. Per-
/
be relieved except BY Court Of Equity.
But it is insisted that the company itself
| should bring suit, and that Pardclris being
only q stockholder, cannot be heard IN this
court. We do not agree to this view. 1t is
not denied that if tho company had refused to
Institute proceedings the stockholders might
do 30. There is NO principle of equity admin
islration which doDies to q stockh0lder protec-
ton in Court of Equity. It is trne that the
| CORPORATION represents tue corporate interests,
aud in this case it would, perhaps be most ip-
propriate that the orroration should bring o
suit for it's own protection, and for the protec-
ton of the rights of the original stockholders.
But 1t has at least neglected and omitted to 10
| go. Under such circumstances any slockhouer
| NAV proceel. We think the bill FLED in this
case by the plaintiff for his own benefit, and
for the benefit of his co-stocSholders. IS prop
erly conceived, and that upon the case made
by IT, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief
| askei. The demurrer must be overruled, and
the motion to dissolve the injunction must be
denied. The defendants will have leave to
answer under the rule.
| E. W. BAYNARD, EXECU ron. vs.. THE UNITED
STATES COTTON COMPANY.
| Several ques ions of much interest were
very we'll and very earnestly argued IL this
cas- upon all of which. except one, we shall
refrain from expressing an opinion, since the
| decision OF that one must determine the con-
troversy before us. -.
With view 10 the commencement OF suit
against the United States Cotton company, o
corporation created by the laws OF New York,
and having its principal place OF business in
New York, process was sued out against the
1