The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-10-27
THE SUPREME COURT.
The Lamar Cotton Case Decided In Favor of
Ex-Secretary McCulioch.

THE SUPREME COURT.
The Lamar Cotton Case Decided In Favor of
Ex-Secretary McCulioch.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 26-In the Supreme Court
of the United States today, Mr.. Justice Blatch-
ford announced the decision OF the court in the
case in error from the Circuit Court Of the
Southern district of New York, brought by G..
De Rosset Lamar executor of GaZaway B.
Lamar, deceased, against Hugh McCulloch, ex-
Secretary of the Treasury. The petition was
originally brought in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, in Sept, 1873. and was re-
moved into the Circuit Court of the United
States by the defendant. The declaration was
framed to recover $780, 200 as the value of 578
bales of cotton, known as the Thomasville
cotton, and $l10 760 as the value of 426
other bales Of cotton known the Florida
cotton The suit was afterwards discontinued
as to the Thomasville cotton The cotton in
question was seized in 1867 by special agents of
the Treasury Department as captured or
abandoned property" shipped to New York and
sold. According to the letter of the special
agent, it was owned by ''The Exporting and I'm
porting Company of Georgia president,
g. B. Lamarl, company engaged in
the sole business of blockade-running
and holding said property for the purpose of aid
ing and abetting the rebellion" The court quotes
the acts of March IL, 1863, authorizing the Sec
rotary of the Treasury to appoint special agents
TO receive and collect all abandoned or captured
property in the States in instruction and Civ
ing authority to any person claiming to have
been the owner of such captured or abandoned
property to prefer his claim to the proceeds
thereof in the Court of Claims, any time within
two years after the suppression of the rebellion.
1t also quotes from the act of July q, 1863 de-
claring it to have been the true intent and
meaning of the act of March IL, 1863 that the
remedy given in cases of seizure made under
said act by preferring claims in the Court of
Claims should be exclusive, precluding the owner
of any property taken by agents of the Treasury
Department., in virtue of the said act from suit
at common law or any other mode of
redress whatever before any court or tribunal
other than the said Court of Claims. The court
says that it is manifest that the act of July a.
1868 was intended to cover, and does cover, a
case like the present. Whatever doubt there
might have been before the act was passed.
there could be none now The court says:
Even though the property taken was private
property if it was taken by officer
agent of the United States, under claim that
it was abandoned or captured property, in the
administration OF the act of March IL, 1863, or
in virtue thereof, or under color thereof, the ju
rsdiction of every court but the Court of Claims,
in respect to every mode of redress, is taken
away when it is pleaded or alleged in defense
that the property was taken by the defendant
as such officer or agent in the administration of
the act, or in virtue or under color thereof, and
that fact is sustained by the proof" The Cir
cult Court had instructed the jury to find yer
dict for the defendant, and this Judgment the
Supreme Court afirms.
Mr. Justice Gray announced the decision of the
court in the case of Oliver B. Filiey plaintiff in
error, against j. Pope and Jas. E. Pope Filey
contracted with the Popesfor the purchase of 500
tons of pigiron 'at $26 per ton, cash, in bond at
New Orleans; shipment from Glasgow as soon as
possible; delivery and sale subject to ocean
risks" The iron was shipped from Leith in
stead OF Glasgow and on this ground Filley re-
fused to receive it. The Popes brought suit and
the Circuit Court of the Eastern district of Mis-
souri, instructed the jury that the provision of
the contract that the iron was to be shipped from
Glasgow was not material provision of the con-
tract, so far as this controversy was concerned
and verdict and judgment were rendered for
the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court holds that it
has neither the means nor the right to determine
why the parties in this contract specified "ship-
ment from Glasgow, but is bound to give effect
TO the terms which the parties have chosen for
themselves The judgment of the Circuit Court
is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded
with directions to order new trial
Justice Gray also announced the decision in
the case of Norrington 81 Co., of Great Britain,
plaintiffs in error, against Peter Wright & Sons
of Philadelphia. The latter contracted to pur-
chase 900 tons of iron rails, to be delivered at
lveries some months were greatly below, and in
Others in excess of 900 TONS in consequence of
which the Philadelphia firm declined to accept
certain of the shipments. The matter having
been brought to trial in the Circuit Court for the
Eastern district of Pennsylvania, judgment was
rendered for the defendants. The Supreme
Court. reviewing the subject. is of opinion that
9ie plaintiffs failure to make such shipments in
February and March as the contract requires
lreyents their taking this action The judgment
,f the Circuit Court is therefore affirmed. lT523
The Chief Justice announced the following
order 1.-THE Reporter having represented that,
owing to the number of decisions at the last term
twas impracticable to put the reports in three
volumes, it is therefore now here ordered that he
publish an additional volume, containing de-
cisions of the last term and also another volume,
containing only decisions of the present term,
pursuant to the provisions of the first clause Of
Section 681 of the Revised Statutes, and Section
j of Chapter 389 of the acts first session of the
Forty-seventh Congress. approved Aug. 5, 1882"