The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-06-19


by R A. Charming, of counsel for appellant, and
w. II. Peckham and Nelson }. Waterbury for re-
Adjourned to Monday, June 21, 1876.
DAY CALENDAR
The following is the day calendar for Monday
June 81, s75Nos. 33, 81 % Asa. rs 49, SO and So
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
COTTON coHTRAcTs-rHE PRINCIPLES GOVERN
ING THEM.
WASHINGTON, June 49, 1875
In the Supreme Court OF the United states the
following decisions nave been glven:-
No. 49, The United States, appellants, vs.. G. V.
Woodruff aud A. Bouchard, Julia A. Mutt, execu-
trix of Halter Mutt Mary A. Wells, Ell al.
No. 143. Bessie Elgee Gaussen, executrix OF John
K. Elgee, deceased, appellant vs.. The United
States.
No. 1866 c. v. Woodruff Co., appellants, VS..
The United States
No. 22a Julia A. Mutt, executrix OF Halter Matt,
deceased, appellant, vs. The United States
Mr.. Justice Strong delivered the opinion
OF the Court. These cases have been
deliberately aud very ably argued, touch
ing both the legality and the construction
OF the contracts under which the different parties
claim. But in the view which we take Of the mer-
its of the controversy it is unnecessary deter
mine whether the contracts were or were not for
bidden by the non-intercourse acts or Congress.
It is SUFFICIENT to examine the contracts them
selves and to determine what is their true mean
ing From the findings OF the Court OF Claims IL
appears that the cotton, which Is the subject OF
controversy, was raised upon three plantations in
wilkinson county, Mississippi. worked by John
]. Elgee and Josiah Chambers. The interest or
the latter, whatever 1t may have been,
was, however abandoned to his copartner, and
before the seizure under the Captured and Aoan-
fh.ax hnla nf han hArl
TO the cotton had become vested In Elgee exclu-
sively. This has not been controyerted. The
fundamental question, therefore, is, in all the
cases, whether Elgee parted with the ownership
by either or the contracts found by the Court OF
Claims TO have been made by him, or
for MIN by his agent, Gordon. IL is the
owner alone who has any standing In the Court
OF Claims under the Captured and Abandoned
Property act. In regard to such property only
sucn suits can be brought as are authorized by
the statute. That statute THE act or March L.
1861 furnishes a complete system Tor the prose-
cutlon OF claims unuer it and dennes the extent
OF the rights which those VINO claim an interest IN
the proceeds OF property captured or abandoned
during the civil war may assert against the gov
ernmenr. According TO the well known rules OF
OF all Others, and the rights defined are the
only ones which can be enforced in any
judicial proceeding Inc language OF the act Is.
''tHat any person claiming to nave been the owner
OF any sucn abandoned or captured property
preston OF the rebellion. prefer his claim to the
proceeds thereof in the Court OF Claims, aud on
proof 10 the satisfaction OF SAID court Of MS own
ersnIp OF said property, OF hts right TO the pro-
ceeds thereof, and that ne has never given
any aid or support TO the present rebellion,
TO receive the residue or such proceeds, afser
the deduction OF any purchase money which may
have been paid, together vita the expense OF
transport alton and sale OF said property and
other Lawful expenses attending the disposition
thereof Thus IL IL plain that no one Is allowed
10 sue in the Court OF Claims for the proceeds OF
CA mr. q
prove to tue SATISFACTION OF the Court three
things First, mis- ownership OF the property
thereof; and, thirdly. that ne never gave aid or
comfort TO the rebellion. The third, u
De no longer necessary since tue amnesty
pTociamattons, but tue ownership OF the property
at the time oil the seizure ana the right 10 the
proceeds thereof, are sun indispensable 70 any
standing IN court as claimant Tor the proceeds
OF property capturei when nave been pala Into
the Treasury OF the United States. We are, then.
70 inquire whether Woodruff aud Bouchard or
Halter Mutt had acquired the ownership OF the
cotton prior 10 It's seizure by the agent Of the
United States the I'd OF April, 1862;
Tor, II either or these parties mad De
proceeds Of its sale before that date. that
party entitled TO Judgment lor the sum re-
inaining In the Treasury after the deductions are
made PROVIDED by the statute. IT. on the otner
hand, neither OF those parties has SHOWN tDat
Elgee parted with hts title; Il the ownership re-
NAMED in Egee until after the SEIZURE ana until
his death, his representatives are the only per-
sons mat are authorized 70 sue lOr the proceeds
are the owners, whatever equities may exist IN
favor OF the parties who contracted 70 Guy. We
come, then, az once, 10 the question whether
woodruff and Boucnard acquired tine ownership OF
Elgee. II they did, 10 was Inedaiely through Z.
>. Loodell. 1hey made no contract WITH ElRee,
but LoDdel diu, ana they purchased LobaelPs
contract What, then, was that contractS
on toe sist day o. July, lses ". 9; Gordon, an
authorized agent OF Egee aud Chambers, entered
into tue following agreement with Loodeli:-
MISSISSIPPI wilkinson county.
We have this slst ofJaiy 1858 sold unto Mr. c. Lob
dell OF cotton, lying in the county afore
said numbering about 2loJ bales at the price OF zen
vered 1T the landing at fort Adams, and 70 be paid TOR
wien weighed Mr.. Lobiel agreeing 10 furnish. at his
own cost the bagslns rope ami wne 70 bae the option
order connrm this contract the Of SsU THIS cot
will he received aud shipped by the house OF ia
silva Co. New orleans ana from tina date is At tho
"a average Of eVO pounds when bsed;c oopnox
As'n''Or M'''r' 4 sls & L @3s SnnpSsrA
At the time when the CONTRACTS was made the
baled cotton was stored unoer covering OF
boards at some place not certainly Designated.
A portion equal to about twenty bales INHALED
was IN gin house Buffalo Bayou, at place
known as tine kocks,v or "Felteris Plantation
about ten miles from the Mississippi River. Az
TINS place LoDdell and the agent or Egee met.
whether IL was the same place where the bulk
Immediately alter the CONTRACTS, Lobdell employed
J. M. Norris living near were the cotton Was
stored, ITO watcn aud take caren OF IL, ana
paid MIN therefor aud motifs continued has
care until tne cotton was seized ~ tue
agent VI the United states. But IL does not
appear that the possesaioR was surrendered 70