New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-06-24
COURT RECORD.
WEDNESDAY. JUNE %, 1875.
limited States Sunleme Court


United States Supreme Court.
The following decisions were rendered
June 18:
No. l42. The United States. appellants
vs.. C. V. Woodruff and A. Bouchard, julia
Mutt. executrix Of Haller Mutt. Mary A
Wells ct al.
No l43. Bessie Elgee Gaussen. executriz
OF John X. Eigee, deceased. appellant. VS.
the United States
No. 166 CIV. Woodruff g. Co.. appellants
VS.. the United States.
No. S23 Julia A. Mutt, executrix Of
Haller Mutt, deceased. appellant, vs. the
United States.-Mr. Justice Strong deliv
cred the opinion of the court. These cases
argued, touching both the legality and the
construction of the contracts under which
the different parties claim. But in the
view which We take Of the merits Of the
controversy it is unnecessary to determine
| whether the contracts were or were not tor.
| biddeD by the non intercourse acts OF Con.
grese. u il sufficient 10 examine the con.
tracts themselves aud to determine what is
their true meaning. From the findings OF
the Court of CLAIMS it appears that the
cotton, which ia the subject OF controversy.
was raised upon three plantations in
Wilkinson county, Mississippi. worked by
John J. Eigee and Josiah Chambers. The
interest of the latter whatever it may have
been, was however, abandoned 20 his &C.
| partner and before the seizure under the
| captured and abandoned property act the
| whole right of Chambers to the cotton had
become vested in Elgee exclusively. This
has not been controverted. The funda-
mental question. therefore, is. in all the
cases, whether Elgee parted with the own
ership by either of the contracts found by
| the Court of Claims to have been made by
him or for him by his agent, Gordon. 1t Is
! the owner alone who has any standing in
| the Court Of Claims under the cap
! tured and abandoned property act.
| suits can be brought as are authorized by
! the statute. That statute 1.-THE act Of March
IL, 1863 furnishes q complete eysten for
the prosecution OF claims under it, and de-
fines the extent of the rights which those
who claim an interest in the proceeds of
property captured or abandoned during the
civil war may assert against tho govern
ment. According to the we'll known rules
of statutory construction, the system is ex.
elusive Of all others, and the rights defined
are tho only ones which can be enforced IN
any judicial proceeding. Tho language Of
the act is. that any person claiming to
have been the owner OF any such abandoned
or captured property may, at any time
within two years after the suppression OF
the rebellion, prefer his claim 70 the
proceeds thereof in the Court OF Claims
and on proof TO the satisfaction OF eaij.
court OF his ownership Of said prop
Grey. of his right to the proceeds
thereof. and that he has never given
any aid or support 20 the present rebellion,
70 receive the residue of such proceeds, after
tho deduction Of any purchase money
which may have been paid, together with
the expense of transportation and sale Of
said property and other lawful expenses
attending the disposition thereof" Thus it
is plain that no one is allowed 70 sue in the
Court OF Claims for the proceeds Of cap
tured or abandoned property unless he can
prove TO the satisfaction OF the court three
things: First, his ownership Of the proper
ty seized; secondly. his right to the pro
ceeds thereof, and, thirdly, that he never
gave aid or comfort to the rebellion. The
third. it is true. has been ruled by
since the amnesty prOclamations, but
the ownership Of the property at the
time of the seiz ure and the right to the
proceeds thereof, are still indispensable to
any standing in court as q claimant ior
the proceeds of property captured which
have been paid into the treasury OF the
United States. We are, then. to inquire
whether Woodruff and Bouchard or Halier
Mutt had acquired the ownership of the
CObteR pTIUS u llb bcILuIO UJ lu0 dScub OL
the United States on the second Of April,
1862; for, if either of these parties had be-
como the owner and entitled to the pro-
ceeds OF its sale before that date, that
party is entitled to . judgment for
the sum remaining in The treasury
after the deductions are made pro.
vided by the statute. If, on the other hand,
neither Of those parties has shown that
Elgee parted with his title; il the owner
chin ipa1 an ElUaO until aftop bo iu
ure, and until his death, his representatives
are the only persons that are authorized to
sue for the proceeds Of the cotton in the
Court of Claims, for they only are the
owners, whatever equities may exist in
favor Of the parties who contracted to buy.
We core, then, at once to the question
whether Woodruff and Bouchard acquired
Immediately through c. 5. Lobdell. They
made no contract with Elgee, but Lobdell
did, and they purchased Lobdell's contract.
What, then. was that cOntracts
On the thiriy-tirst day OF July, 1868, w.
c. Gordon, an authorized agent OF Elgee
and Chambers, entered into the following
agreement with Lobdel'
MISSISSIPPI. Wilkinson County
We have this thirty first of July, 1868 sold
unto Mr.. G. S. Lobdell our crops OF cotton,
now lying in the county aforesaid, number
ing about 2l00 bales, at the rate OF ten cents
per pound. currency. the said cotton to be
delivered at the landing at Fort Adams,
and to be paid for when weighed. Mr.. Lab
dell agreeing to furnish, at his own cost,
the bagging, rope and twine 70 bale the cot
ton unginned; and we DO acknowledge to
have received. in order TO confirm this con-
tract, the sum of $50. This cotton will be
received and shipped by the house OF Da !
Silva g. Co.. New Orleans, and from this |
date is at the risk Of Mr. Lobdell. This |
cotton ia said to haya weighed an average
". c. GORDON.
Agent tor Messre. Elgee and Chambers.
c. S. LOBDELL
At the time when the contract was made |
the baled cotton was stored under cover. |
ing of boards at some place not certainly |
designated. A portion equal to about |
twenty bales unbaled was in a gin house on
Rocks" or "Felter's Plantation" about
ten miles from the Mississippi river At |
this place Lobdell and the agent of Elgee
met. Whether it was the same place where
me bulk OF the cotton was lying does not
appear. immediately after the
contract, Lobdell employed j. M. Morris,
living near where the cotton was stored,
TO watch and take care" Of it, and paid
him therefor. and Morris continued his
,are until the cotton vas seized by the
agent of the United States. But it does not
lppear that the possession was surrendered !
o Morris or that there was any change Of
possession. At this time the region where
he parties were was greatly disturbed by
he war and the cotton was in danger of
,eing burned by the Confederate forces and
# being captured by the United States
Jnder these circumstances what ought it to
'e concluded was intended by the contract
'etween Gordon and Lobdelll Was it In
ended to pass the property in the cotton to
he purchaser, or was it in legal feet only
n agreement to sell!