The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1875-12-29
U. y. District Court.


DEC. Z, 1S75.-In Equity. Joseph Williamson s.
ais, assignees, VS.. Josiah A. Colcord 6 ux
FoxJ. This cause arises from the depredations
committed on commerce by the rebel cruiser
Florida in March 1868.
AT that time the bankrupt, Josiah A. Colcord of
Stockton in this District, was master and part
owner Of the barque M. j. Coleord, which was des-
troyed by the Florida the 9th of March while on
her voyage from New York to Cape of Good Hope.
The interest of said Colcord master and owner is
stated to have been something over $11,O00 for the
recovery of which sum, under the Geneva award,
petition in behalf of MIRO. Colcord, is pending
before the proper tribunal at Washington.
Capt. Colcord, sometime after his return to the
United States, became a member of the firm of Col
cord, Berry & Co. The firm proved insolvent, and
having been adjudged bankrupts, the compliments
were chosen and qualified assignees in bankruptcy
Of said estate and they have also filed their petition
at Washington for the allowance to them of this
claim for damages, for the benefit of said Cocords
estate and have instituted this bill to have the
speGtive rights and interest in the award which may
be made in this behalf ascertained and determined
between them.
The respondents in their allege that in Sept.
1868, Capt. Colcord sin consideration of love and
affection and for other good and sufficient consider
ations did give, assign transfer and set to his
vile SAID Martha y. Colcord said claim, arising
from the loss OF said barue and that he has not since
That time had or pretended to have any ownership
OF contro over SAID claim, but that SAID marina ..
ooicoro mas exercised such ownership anu ecntrol
and has always represented and held herself out as
the owner of such claim.'
Under the laws Of this state, husband and wife
may contract directly with each other, but when
payment was made for property conveyed to her
from the property of her husband it conveyed
uy nn W ner' wi,hou' Vaiuapie cohsuera'ion pau
~ ""y 70 o@Aon 40 INC piopol's VI noi
u'0au W pay ni' uen'S 0oi'i"e'eO o0ioie suon pun
r..ts,a, IN = n. =. Vs. Ga. o.o NJ ..
:" $50 I,-. ,, Wv W..
-, N,.4 80 49, IS, 80 w -
r. sa3 90 80 ~. :..ae
' y o'noA'' ~ 40 a.oe ~ "- ~ 'd1n.,o1
VIZ ,an W ue.u aeansS .no oanAi IVY. Inns
n.o s--co - ,-o1,
W. s.-e
", o. Is ~ az, e,', '. ~
"ai,' 1'-' ooon " oeiis ano = '.' '"-'A
iul' - es.oppeu' niS "sSisnee 10 aiso es'oppeu'
ooo nv p'.AA "p' "'' - oA m
therefore 70 ',e u this caaee'
as L 'ne parties meie hus0.nu anu "ne' eaon oiain-
ing 'no peien. VI 'no a"iu, auu 'ns iulo9 VI oqu's'
WHICH ~ouiu NC appn'a'ie II INC CASE m's pen'ns
pe'meeh 'nose parties nius' so'eih auu ooh'ioi NY
oecision III 'he pieesn0 suiI.
Ahe sup1ect ma.eel Vi 'nis oon'io'eisy u 'na'
uncertain anu ihuehiiaoie cnaracter 'naI 'ne TO-
seaicnes VI nei'nei COUNSEL VI eoai' nave uisoo'eou
any au'hoiltes urecty apphcapie anu WHICH arc
decisive OF the questions mere presented. Inc cai
was not against foreign government 1or ihuem"'y
for damages oocasioned by its authority, as was the
case OF Comegys VS.. vase Peters, 81 u, l93, but
1t is one degree more remote and contingent being
for recompense for injuries suffered from this rebel
prnic viii U0VprOmnnt commanded
been permitted, through the negligence OF the Brit
lsh authorities, TO DE constructed anu equipped anu
to depart from British territory to accomplish It's
piraces and by reason OF such negligence indemnity
was demanded from the government OF Great Britain
for the damages thus inflicted on our commerce.
Our own government was not responsible and no
valid claim could be made upon 1t Tor redress by the
sufferers. Great Britain mad not directly commltted
or authorized these oepreoauons 70 De made anu IL
was only on the ground OF her 1aure 10 comply win
her obligations under the rules OF international law
That any redress could De sought against her' ior
the wrongs thus sustained. 1t is dlncuit therefore
70 imagine aclaim OF more precarlous nature
wholy dependent on tne Willingness ol oreat oritalh
10 acknowledge ana make satsiactlon Ior tne conse
quences OF ner misdoings' or submit the sae ior Ut
cision 70 tne aroiration ol otners' ny WHICH ''er
course her accountability was subsequently es-
IL Claimed that, being OF tbs character not mani
tested by any evidence whatever of documentary
nature but the whole claim resting and being in
mere expectancy and possibility, it was not suscepti-
BILE of donation and therefore, that there could be
no valid gift of the same to Mrs. Colcord by her
husband 1t is certain that there was nothing in his
control possession which coudibe so given and de-
yered as to constitute, at law, complete and per-
feet gift and confer legal valid title to the donee;
but equity recognizes many rights, expectancies and
nossbilities az heino the subject matter of Gift or
po'0DA0' 90 osANs 'Ae -''...,,. -. g
transfer, 30 iar as 10 coner al elui'aoie ii'eies'
therein, which court Of equity will acknowledge,
ustain and nrotect as sufficient TO divest the donor
-. -. 1891 ~ ,,o, a.,o 81 .ho+
Vi any rights tnereIo, pio'iueu no a' uoe al 'n"'
requiste to perfect and carry out his intentions
aswb;te q, Tudor Lead. Cases Eo BOT 3Os 343 344
- III ~ ~ ,;rht ot .ho r,bor;tios tboro;,, 70
AMIR Iu' IL 'ne nsh' VI 'he 'u'noi i'ien 'neiei ~
ferred to and commented upon, am lncnned 10 noid
that the subject matter of the present controversy
80. ..,, ..u -, .o4 49,
was sucn that equity "oulu sustain anu protect 'ne
rights and claims of the wife thereto, If all was done
that was reouisite to accomplish the purpose Of the
- 49, 80 .to sor,o IN his ,vifo
nuepohu W feo' 'ii0 '" ~ ~ w.
1t is necessary therefore, TO crltlcauy examine tne
evidence and see what was said and done between
the noros 81 +ho +ine oY tbis alleged oft az if ia
not claimed, that any writings Of any kind were exc
cuted by either party or that there was then at
any subsequent time anv svbolical del;verv of any
1"o'1 n' 'Ne, any 0'-"0oS "S"'oi' " "1'
tmng Whatever, either documentary or otherwise.
The answers of both the bankrupt and his wife,
state that this transfer was made in consideration