New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-10-15
Easere stag Ssprene essrs Dect,i.,s.

lfrOM tno d. LOza8 HeptsDlfcan.f
Among tie recent decisions Of the United
Ssates Supreme Court given in Wallace's
reports is that in the ease Of Ludlow va
Ramsey, on appeal from the United States
Circuit Ccort for the eastern district of
tennessee. The facts. briefly stated, are:
That while Ramsey Was voluntarily absent
from his ZONE in Knox county, Tennessee.
serving in the confederate cause, u piece of
property was sold and bid in by Vail for
held by Cynthia S. White against Ramsey
Ludlow purchased it from Vail. and Ram.
sey, on his return, sued Ludlow for posses
sion Of the property, alleging that when
the suit was brought against him on his
note he was absent and not in a condition
to deftnd it. 1t appeared further that after
his return from the confederate army he
was pardOned by the Pres. dent, and in his
suit against Ludlow this pardon was pro-
duceu.
The district court granted him the relief
asked and set aside the sale, on the ground
that the attachment issued at the suit of
White was insufficient "for want of suf-
fcient affidavit that the chancery court
of tie State in which suit was brought ac-
there were "null and void" and that a.
they had no other effect than to throw q
'cloud" upon Ramsey's title, the removal of
it the court regarded az ground for jurisdic-
ton and relief. Ludlow brought the case
before the Supreme Court. and that court
decided in his favor for the reasons 81 .ed
below:
1t is averred by Ramsey in his bill in the
present suit that at the time when the at
tachment was made out, and when the pub
LEGATION was made in the newspaper at
Knoxville. notifying him to appear and de
TEND the original suit, or that udgment
would be taken pro coa.fess0 against him,
he was in NO situation to see or know OF
such publication. and he makes various a.
legation, in confirmation of that statement,
that he was IN the country held by the con
federafe troops etc.
On these allegations the question arises,
why was the complainant in the country
held by confederate troops! Why could he
not return to Knoxville Why could he
not have communication with that place!
II was his place of residence. He says tina.
he left Knoxville a short time before the
federal troops arrived. Why did he leave
Was he force d to leave. or was his return
forbidden Could he not have returned at
any moment by submitting to the authori-
ties of the United States! Was not his alb
sence a voluntary one The order of pub
LEGATION was made at the January rules.
1864 President Lincolns proclamation of
amnesty was issued on the eighth Of Decem-
Der previous, Offering pardon and amnesty
70 all persons who would take the oath of
allegiance. Then what obstacle existed to
prevent the compliments return! The
'auses alleged Were certainly insufficient.
The case differs from that of Dean vs.
Nelson, decided at the present term. In
hat case Nelson and his wife were driven
tut Of Memphis by military order, and
we're not permitted to return, and the pro-
eedings to foreclose their property took
lace during their enforced absence. The
'ther defendant, Nav, was only nOminallv
Interested, and had always been within the
lines. But if, as in this case. a
'artv voluntarily leaves his country or his
esidence for the purpose of engaging in
ostilities against the former, he can not be
esmitted to complain of legal proceedings
egularly prosecuted against him as an a5-
entee. on the ground of his inability to re-
urn or hold communication with the place
'ould he carrying the privilege of contra
o" rHlentem to an unreasonable extent
We think it can not be set up in this case