The New York herald., 1875-07-13
BROOKLYN COURTS.
SUPREME coURr-TEsrNG THE RIGHT OF AN
EXCIsR BOARD 10 REFUSE LICENSE.
Ralnre Lndpa Barnard.

ExCIsE BOARD 10 REFUSE A LICENSE
Before Judge Barnard.
Yesterday application was made by the counsel
for the hoei Keepers ar Brewster's station, on
the Erie line, for mandamus to compel the Put
nam county License Board TO grant a license to
sen liquor The counsel stated that Messrs. Abb
bost and MacMahon, Inc REALTORS fitted MOTEL at
an expense OF 600 and had license for 1f-
teen years. Last spring . petition aud a
bond to the Excise Board was furnished when the
application as returhed lAoorsed, Tins petition
not received" and the Board resolved 10 grant Il
licenses IN the town OF South East. Tue counsel
held that no Excise Board had the right 10 say in
auvance tn2t tuey W0uld grant no licenses. The
mancamus was to determine whether IN the ad-
mlnistration OF the law VI 1857 the realtors were
emitted TO lceLse.
in their answer the Commissioners OF Excise
set forth that neither before nor after the presen
tatton OF the relators' peten Gld they promise not
to grant or refuse licenses. Tney denlea the appli-
grant IL. The reasons Contained In the petition
were not suircient to warrant their grantlng tne
Judge Barnard granted an alternative manda-
mus, cue issue to oe tried IN Putnam county.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
SUIT UNDER THE CAPTURED AND ABANDONED
pRoPERrY ACr-THE INTEREST," OF A FAcroR
IN PROPERTY CONSIGNED TO him.
WASHINGTON, July 12 1875.
In the Supreme Court OF tine United States the
following opinions were giyen:-
No. 3s4. The United States appellants, vs.. John
L. Vlllalonga-Appea al nom the Court OF Claims
Mr. Justice Strong delivered tAe opinion OF the
Court.
Tne third section OF the act OF congress OF
March1 II, 1868 2 Stats, s29), wl.cn alone author
tied suit against the United States for the
covery OF the proceeds OF sale OF Captured or
abandoned property enacts that:-"Any person
calming 10 have oeen the owner OF any such
aoandoned or captured property may at
any time within two years alter the sup
preston OF the rebellion prefer ms claim
TO tie proceeds thereof III the Court OF Claims,
and on proof TO the satisfaction Of the court OF his
ownership 0i saId property, mis- rig pro-
ceeds thereof, and that ne has never given any
ald or comfort to The present rebellion, receive
the residue OF said proceedA after she deduction
OF any purchase money wnich may nave been paid,
together With tue expense o. transportation and
sale OF SAID property and other lawful expenses
attending the disposition tbereoLn
Under this enacImaat the claimant IN the Court
below sought TO recover she proceeds OF 493 bsles
OF cotton which were seized by the army Of the
United States az Savarnah, In December, 1904
After It's seizure tue cotton was turned over 10
the agents OF the Treasury Department aud sold,
and tue proceeds Of the sale were paid Ito the
Treasury. or the whole number or bales captured
1s6 belonged 10 the claimant but the remainder
ne had received az cotton factor from various
persons and had made advances thereon IN
money OF the Con ederate states. The aggregate of
these advances was $5l, 153 IT. 1t does appear
from the nndlng or facts who these different
owners were now much had been advanced TO
eacn, what was the value OF the advances In
money OF the United States. Upon tnis state OF
facts the Court OF Claims gave judgment in favor
Of the cotton which belonged TO MIN In his own
right but also for tne entire proceeds Of that
ne had made advances. Whether this Judgment
was correct on such q state OF lacts ls the que5-
ton now presented, ana the answer to IT must
depend upon the antecedent inquiry whether
as TO the cotton upon which the claim
ant nad made partial advances az factor
lDe right to its proceeds within the meaning OF
the act OF Congress. No doubt factor who has
made advances upon goods consigned TO hlm may
De regarded In a limited sense and 70 The extent
OF his advances, as an owner; yet In reality he
has but lien, with O right OF possession OF the
SESSION Dy suit against q trespsssser upon IL, and
he may sell the property TO reimburse advances,
remaining, however, accountable 10 his con-
sgnor for any surplus. But after all he ls
not the real owner. ne IS only an
Tie owner may, at any time before
his factor has sold the goods reclaim the posses
est and expenses. lie has not lost his ownership
by committing the custody or the goods 70 the
factor and by receiving advances upon them lie
may be made by his agent, the factor, subject to
a cnsrge OF the advances ana expenses. factor,
therefore, Notwithstanding he may nave made ad-
vances upon the property consigned 10 him, has
bu5 limited right That right is sometimes
called special property, but II Is never regarded
as general ownership At most it is mo more
tnan ownership OF lien or charge upon the prop
cry. such is unquestlonably the doctrine OF the
common law And there 10 nothing In any
statute Affecting this case that changes the
doctrine. Certainly the statutes or Georgia,
the Code Of tnat state or 1861, while actor's lien
Il recognized and declared 10 extend to all
balances IN general account and 90 attach TO the
proceeds oisale OF goods consigned as well as 80
the goods themselves lCode p. 4lol, there is
nothing that declares he has anything more than
q lien protected by his possession. Injuries TO
that possession may, indeed, DO redressed By
action IN his name and 1t may be assumed that
upon contract Of sale made BY him be may sue,
but ELL this - perfectly consistent with the
continuance OF the general ownership IN
his consgnors until he has made a sale. Aud
there Is Significant CLAUSE
ol the state which shows that a factor there has
not the general property, In section 900 OF the
srtcle respecting injuries TO personally generally
(Code OF 1884, D. 552D, IL Is enacted that '1n cases
OF Dalnents, where the possession is In the bailee
trespass committed during the existence OF the
balment win give right OF action 70 the bailee
Tor the interference with his special property ana
concurrent right OF action 70 the baor for Inter-
ference Win his general property" If this appnes
20 tbe case OF balment 70 a factor, as N SUPPOSED
py the delendant in error, IL Is clear declaration
tnat the factOr's right does not extend beyond a
special property mere right TO hold for q par.
! ucular purpose, and That tt does not amount to
| ownership OF the property consigned 10 him
AND there Is nothing in the new code OF Ceorgia
or in any Of the decisions OF the Supreme Conrt
that 10 variant from this. Admit tnat factor
may maintain an action when his possession ia dis
turoed, still u IS question what ne may recover
! Under the statutes Of Georgia he can recover
only for the injury wnich his special propertv
namely, his lien-has sustained. For all beyond
tnat the general owner may sue. The property or
tnat owner II not vested IN his factor. II then ~
be- as was said by the Chief Justice In Kieinis
csse, l3 Wall, l2s that the government consti-
tuten user tne trustee OF captured or abandoned
property for the original owners thereof t is hald
70 see how the trust can exist for the benefit OF
| tue owner OF special property therein beyond
Ia case o. q factor, is measured by the
amount Of bis advances and expenses.
For all beyond that by the law OF Georgia, the
original owner who consigned the GOODS TO the
factoT might sue, and for that original owner the
government became a trustee OF all beyond the
Hia,o,a ca sccvtuIng y, 70 tns aoc,Ilne Of