New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-10-27
CONFISCATED COTTON.
AGAINST BLOCKADE RUNNERS.
THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT SETTLES
LONG CONTESTED WAR CASE.

announced the decision Of the court in tie case IN error
from tie Circuit Court OF the Southern District OF New
York. brought by g. De ROsset LANAI, executor of
Gazaway b. Lamar. deceased against Hugh McCuoch,
ex Secretary of the Treasury His action originally
brought the Supreme Court OF the State OF NewYort
in September 1873. and was removed into the Circuit
Court OF the United states by the defendant. The
declaration framed TO $l5O2S0 as the value
Of SIS oales Of known the Townsville cotton,
and - 200 as tho of 42G other bales OF cotton
known as the Florida cotton. The suit afterwaId
discontinued as To the Ihomasyle cotton Inc COTTON
I'm question was seized in 1863 ny special agents oil the
Treasury Department as captured OF abandoned W
property. shipped to New York and sold
According to the letter Of the special agent 1t was
owned by The Exporting nd Importing Company OF
GeOreia-Prcslent G. b. L,mar-a company engaged in
the sole business of blockade running and holding this
rebellion. The court quotes the act OF March r. 1868.
authorizing the Secretary Of the Treasury to appoint
supcial agents and collect all abandoned
captured property in the states then IN Instruction ana
giving authority to any person claiming TO nave been
tine owner of such captured abandoned property
prefer his claim To the proceeds thereof III te court
OF Claims at any time within TWO ye'rs altef me SUP
July ~ 1865 declaring IL 10 have been the true Intent
AMI meaning of the act Of March - 1863 that the
remedy given Of seizure made under the act by
urcrcflu! claim in the Court of Claims, sbodiG be
cycu.ye prccluane the owner Of any property taken
10y agents of the Treasury Department in virtue Of the
at rom su.t at common law OF any 0tucr mode OI
rplres. whatever before any court or tribunal other
than the Court OF Claims.
The court says thai It Is manifest That the act Of July
~ 1865 was intended to cover. a. YES case
ike the present. whatever doubt there might have
been before the passed there could be none now
If II s s e 5 l AN occ or Sce "f he Gnited sate1
under clam that il was abandoned or captured Ir2b-
cry i'm the admnis of the art OF March II. l~i3.
in thereof under color thereof the iur7dic-
ton Of court hut the Court Of Claims IN respect 70
every e OF redress is taken away when II Is pleaded
or alleged defence that the property was taken y the
ot the act or Ia virtue or ungr color theicu ~" lH"l
fact d, sustained hy the PROOF. -
verdict the defendant and tbs judgment the supIeno
Court ahiM7.
Justice Gray announced the decision Of the court in the
case 81 Oliver b. RILEY, paiutin error against j. Pope
and James L. Pope. fiileJ contracted with the fopes
Tor the purchase Of 800 tons Of pig at 500 ton cash.
IN bond M New Orleans for shipment from Glasgow AZ
soon as possible delivery and sale subject 10 ocean Risks
The iron was shipped from Lcth instead " Glasgow
and ON this ground Fry refused to receive II. The
Pope, brought su and the Circuit Court of the Eastern
pf the contract that the shipped from Glasgow
not material provision Of the contract so iar a
This controversy Wa, concerned and verdict and judg
incut- wor, rendered for the plaintiffs.
The supreme Court hold. that has neither ire means
the right 10 determine why the par.lrS ~ ihls
contract specified shipment from Glasgow, put Is n0anI
20 give elect to the terms which tie parties nave CHOSEN
for then selves De l9dgnrht oil ihr 'lfeulI oII -
therefore reversed and the case is reihanded with
directions to order q new trial
Justice Gray also announced the decision IN the cas-" OF
No,rincton 81 Coz Of Great Britain plaintiffs in
against Peter Wright * sons, of Philadelphia. The
latter contracted purchase 5000 tons OF iron rails 10
Ie delivered the rate OF about 1000 tons uonth.
The deliveries some months were greatly below and In
others ina of 1000 tons, IN consequence of which
tie Philadelphia firm DO. lined .o accept 'e, tain o. me
shipments The matter having been brought 10 tina! ln
the circuit Court for tie Eastern District OF lennsyI-
vauil Judgment was rendered for the defendants inc
supreme Court. rev iewlus tie sui cc j. or az niou tha
the Plaintiffs failure 90 make such shipments IN Feb
waN md March "a, hc contract IPHuIe prevents lAeit
maintaining This action. The Judgment o! TIE circuit
Court Us therefore affirmed.
40 3-Tho Boston Nv'1lH" cold Nin.1F Company plain
mn D. error H. ihg E'4ir Pler .n nm, I,tS. I tor
puJ; lu 'I,oI,p IT, i,,"II ,.'l ' - ti me- I
ia" District .i M, '.N'e.l "-I-'' WI" '''''
I'D, f tf % "a - It.