Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1871-10-14
IMPORTANT DIGESTION.

Among the decisions of the Supreme
Court of the United States, given in Wal
laee's Reports, recently issued, is that in the
case of Ludlow VS.. Ramsey on appeal from
the United States Circuit Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee. The facts,
briefly stated, are: that while Ramsey was
voluntarily absent from his home in Knox
county, Tennessee, serving in the Confede-
rate cause, a piece of property was sold and
bid in by Vail, for $500, under decree to
pay note for 1892 held BY Cynthia S.
White against Ramsey. Ludlow purchased
it from Vail, and Ramsey, on his
return, sued Ludlow for possession of
the property, alleging that when the suf
was brought against him on his note,
he was absent, and not in condition to
defend it. 1t appeared further that after
his return from the Confederate army, he
was pardoned by the President, and in his
suit against Ludlow this pardon was pro-
duced. The District Court granted him
SAfS AOiACA tAohCN5 dAih SOO doANC bhC OulC, Oh
the ground that the attachment issued at
the suit of White was insufficient ''for want
of sufficient affidavit" that the Chancery
Court of the State, in which suit was
brought, acquired no jurisdiction; that the
proceedings there were "null and yoid;'
and that, as they had no other effect than to
throw ''cloud" upon Ransey's title, the
removal of it the Court regarded as ground
for Jurisdiction and relief. Ludlow brought
the case before the Supreme Court, and
that Court decided in his favor, for the rea-
sons stated below:
at is averred by Ramsey in his bill in the
present suit.that at the time when the at
tachment was sued out, and when the pub
lication was made in the newspaper at
Knoxville, notifying him to appear and de-
fend the original suit, or that judgment
would be taken pro cOnfessO against him,
he was in no situation to see or know of
such publication, and he makes various al
legations in confirmation of thatlstatement,
that he was in the country held by the Con-
federate 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
1t was his place of residence. He says that
he left Knoxville a short time before the
Federal troops arrived. Why did he leave?
Was be forced 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 voluntary one? The order of pub
LEGATION was made at the January rules,
1864. President Lincoln's proclamation Of
amnesty was issued on the 9th of Deem
Der previous, Offering pardon and amnesty
to all persons who would take the oath of
allegiance. Then, what obstacle existed
to prevent the compliments return? The
causes alleged were certainly insufficient.
''Tbis case differs from that of Dean rs
Nelson, decided at the present term. In
that case Nelson and his wife were driven
out OF Memphis by military order and
were not permitted to return, and the
proceedings to foreclOSe their property took
place during their enforced absence. The
other defendant, May, was only nominally
interested, and had always been within the
Confederate lines. But if, as in this case,
a party voluntarily leaves his country or his
residence for the purpose of engaging in
hostilities against the former, he cannot be
permitted to complain of legal proceedings
regularly prosecuted against him, as an alb
Sentee, on the ground of his inability to re-
turn or to hold communication with the
place where the proceedings are conducted.
That would be carrying the privilege of
contra non rdLeRtem to an unreasonable
extent. We think it cannot be set up in
this case"