The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-06-11
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

A COTTON CASE DECIDED.
No. t04. Warren Mitchell, appellant VS. The
United States-Appeal from the Court or Claims
Mr.. Justice Swayne delivered the opinion or the
Court This is an appeal from the Court OF
Claims. That Court found the following facts:-
claimant and appellant lived in Louisville KY lie was
e1gaged IN business there In July isS and after tne
tary authority Of The United states in Kentucky pass
oy m
insuigent states anu rem1Jned there until the latter
S to Loaisvi lie While in the Ae conieGersts
aud purchased from different parties bales
nah Upon the capture Of that place BY General sher
man the cotton wa; seized py me military authorities
ment Ihe proceeds amounting 70 the sum Of SIS es a.
venber ana December 1864 lie remained within the in.
surrectonary lines from July ls6l until after The cap
Court Of Claims equally divided in opin,on and dis
to iRs court by appeal When Mitchell passed within
the rebel lines the war between the oya and dslOyal
LARGEST pTCporons Important 6esersnt rights n
insurgents their soldiers when captured were treated
% OF aa Mers en sna p ss
With BY our prize courts Their ports were 6ockadei
erty taken belonging persons domicicd in tho
nsrgent tale was uniformly hed e be son:eaPe 5 as
war had been public one with tcreizn nation. he
Wall 40 Mauran vs the ms Co 6 ID, y me laws
isnd between The inhabitants Of the IoTa and dsOya
states.
OF Tor with the inhabitants the latter II
fights Which could be recognized Such is the law o.
So q ~ Of
e Johns 2. a.; Coolidge vs. Gutherie; Amer Law
~ nj GSOe g ha 4 w ST. Lapine Snd
rsE5e Il wq H. S3 s ouner u NAH va dealings sS While HE
tween the INHABITANTS OF the Respective ter
rebel States not in aid 81 the rebellion were a. valid as
those between themselves ana the inhabitants Of the
whether The appellant ' was donciied IN the SoSfed
Ssf5 s
% IN ane ms e ms, sze
the intervening tract OF time we must look tor the
Ing ne record which tends to snow that when hs lei
When l0o r. rstagaed I1Ssvo had q an,
Done before his departure bo@cie has been thus
remain there tor an unlimited time" tGuer Daniel
rhlllnore ip his book the subject page @ BY ne
place where person lives and has MS home Cstorys
Conf m The u Paff he aedncee ys eo
,Tary. tsruee vs. Rruee Bo 3, and Pull 22s note
s'Ta9 srs vs. isan'GRs sRs
e ne S sG@cs q as
versy between the parties on that proposition We need
once acquired presumed continue until It Is shown
e have 9een c9nnFea o1 T @
tons Conflict 81 Laws, sec So When change Of dom
-
person making the allegation Gcroosenden " Fnller.
r. O.. 2ss 1871 To constitute the new domIce
things indispensa behrst residence in the
locality and. second, the Intention 10 remain there
The change cannot be made except Grcfo q Both
necessary Either without the other is INSULT
cient Mere absence IRON fixed home, however long
continued, cannot work tho change there must be the
aRfaus 10 change the prior domcile for another Unnl
the = acquired the old remains
Mhsrton's Conf, supra, and the authorities there
clied) These principles are aNiomatc IN tne law
upon the subject. When the claimant lett
Louisville Il would have been Illegal to take
~ his in the Territory where he going such
purpo.c Is not 10 be presumed. The presumption Is
the other way. 10 be established II must be proved.
az Moore n C.. supra Among the circumstances
usually relied upon establish the dninWs ndneadf
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. the party, the exercise OF political
rights the payment o. personal taxes, house OF resi-
AMI q place Of business. tPhimore 100. Whar-
ton sec. 62 and pos All these indicia wanting
the case OF the claimant The rules OF law ap-
piled 20 the Affirmative facts. without the AID
OF negative considerations TO which we have adj
vered conclusive asninst him His purchase Of the
involved the LEGAL consequences IL IL had
been made BIZ agent whom he had sent 10 make H.
Obviously Important further facts bearing the cues
might easily have been put in evidence by either
pary. regret mat il not done. As the IL
conclusion IL necessarily ADVERSE the
appellant The Judgment OF tho Court OF Claims Is