Source: http://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/115/163/case.php
Timestamp: 2017-12-16 07:24:21
Document Index: 698315126

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3', '§ 1059', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3']

LAMAR V. MCCULLOCH, 115 U. S. 163 (1885) - US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE
US Supreme Court Decisions On-Line> Volume 115 > LAMAR V. MCCULLOCH, 115 U. S. 163 (1885)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 115 U. S. 163
Under § 3 of the Act of July 27, 1865, c. 276, 15 Stat. 243, now embodied in § 1059 of the Revised Statutes, in an action of trover brought against a former Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, in a court other than the Court of Claims, to recover a sum of money as the value of certain cotton alleged to have been the private property of the plaintiff, the defendant pleaded that the cotton had, in an insurrectionary state, been taken, received and collected as captured or abandoned property, into the hands of a special agent appointed by the defendant while such Secretary, to receive and collect captured or abandoned property in that state under § 1 of the Act of March 12, 1861, c. 120, 12 Stat. 820; that the provisions of that act were carried out in regard to the cotton, as being captured or abandoned cotton; that all the acts done by the defendant respecting the cotton were done by him through such agent, in the administration of, and in virtue and under color of, the act of 1863, and that, by force of § 3 of the act of 1863, and of § 3 of the act of 1868, the action was barred, and was exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims. It appeared that the cotton had been taken, so far as the defendant was concerned, as being captured or abandoned property, under a claim, made by him in good faith to that effect, in the administration of, and under color of, the act of 1863. Held that, without reference to the question whether the cotton was in fact abandoned or captured property within the act of 1863, the chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
(3) that this action is brought against the defendant "for or on account of private property taken by chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
To these replications the defendant put in similiters. The case was at issue in March, 1874. In October, 1874, Mr. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
I have the honor to report that I proceeded to Thomasville, Georgia, and to carry out your instructions relative to the cottons at that point and vicinity, estimated at over fifteen hundred bales, and specified in my petition to which your letter of the 17th of November was an answer, and found that the cotton was being shipped by Mr. Browne, special agent of the 5th district upon whom I made a demand for the cottons, who refused to allow me to touch a bale of the cotton, and I was refused assistance from the military commander at that post on the ground that he had no authority in the premises. I have respectfully to state that I served in writing notices upon the holders of this cotton, and was the party by whose aid the government did finally come into the possession of the same. I have to respectfully ask that the said special agent, Browne, be ordered to allow me to carry out my orders contained in chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
On 27th of February, 1866, Mr. Cabell presented to the Treasury Department a petition setting forth that on the 22d of July, 1865, J. H. Alexander, then acting assistant supervising special agent of the United States Treasury Department for the Ninth special agency, "under the regulations of said department for the collection of captured and abandoned property in the disloyal states," had appointed Mr. Cabell acting aid to the assistant special Treasury agent for the District of Florida, "to collect and receive all the cotton, tobacco, and other property belonging to the United States;" that in July, 1865, one Douglas shipped from Tallahassee to one Ottman, a reputed Treasury agent at Jacksonville, Florida, 268 bales of "government cotton," which Mr. Cabell then claimed were taken from his district, and should of right be under his control, and that in August, 1865, Mr. Cabell paid the expenses of preparing the cotton for shipment, which Ottman had not paid, being $6,883.89. The petition prayed that Mr. Cabell be paid the $6,883.89, and be allowed compensation for his services in the matter. On the 4th of May, 1866, the defendant sent the following letter to Mr. Draper, the United States cotton agent at New York: chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
This settlement was made on the basis of giving to Mr. Cabell one-fourth part of the gross value of the cotton as sold at New York and deducting therefrom the $6,654 and the $6,883,89, and also one-fourth part of the expenses on the cotton before its shipment at Jacksonville, and for its transit from there to New York, and at New York, and adding $500 in respect of the Thomasville cotton, making a total allowance of $4,881.10, which sum was paid to Mr. Este, for Mr. Cabell, by Mr. Spinner, as special agent, by a draft on the Treasurer of the United States, May 27, 1867. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the Court. After stating the facts in the language above reported, he continued chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
In his petition of February 27, 1866, to the defendant, Mr. Cabell states that he had been appointed by Mr. Alexander, in July, 1865, to "collect and receive all the cotton, tobacco, and chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
"Provided that the remedy given in cases of seizure under the said acts by preferring claim in the Court of Claims shall be exclusive, precluding the owner of any property taken by agents of the Treasury Department as abandoned or captured property, in virtue or under color of said acts, from suit at common law, or any other mode of redress whatever before any court other than said Court of Claims."
One Elgee brought a suit in a state court in Missouri against one Lovell to recover the possession of some bales of cotton. Lovell removed the case into the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Missouri on the ground that he was in possession chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
There was a final judgment against the plaintiff, and the case was brought into this Court by a writ of error sued out by Elgee's administrator, and was No. 63 on the docket of chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
It is manifest, we think, that section 3 of the Act of July 27, 1868, was intended to cover and does cover a case like the present. The act in terms includes a suit for what is in fact private property, taken by an agent of the United States as being abandoned or captured property, in the administration of the Act of March 12, 1863, or in virtue thereof, or under color thereof. Whatever doubt there may have been before the Act of July 27, 1868, was passed, on facts such as those in Elgee's case, there can be none as to this case on its facts, under the language of that act. Even though the property taken was private property, if it was taken by an officer or agent of the United States under a claim that it was abandoned or captured property in the administration of the Act of March 12, 1863, or in virtue thereof, or under color thereof, the jurisdiction 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 fact to be sustained by the proof is not that the property was in fact abandoned or captured property, but that it was in fact taken as being such, on a claim to that effect, in the administration of the act or in virtue of it or under color of it. Of course there must be good faith, or there can be no color. The claim must not be made in bad faith. In McLeod v. Callicott, 1 Chase 443, Chief Justice Chase, in speaking of § 3 of the Act of July 27, 1868, says that if a chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
person proceeds in good faith, believing himself to be warranted as an officer of the government in taking charge of property under the act, he is covered by its provisions, and that in such case, although the acts he does as such officer are done under a mistake as to the character of the property, he is protected by the act against a private suit. This we believe to be the proper interpretation of the statute. In Lammon v. Feusier, 111 U. S. 17, where a marshal having an attachment against the property of one person levied it on the property of a stranger, it was held by this Court that the sureties on the official bond of the marshal were liable to the stranger, because the marshal had acted colore officii, although he had acted without sufficient warrant.
This suit is not against Mr. Cabell. No accusation of bad faith against Mr. Cabell can affect the defendant, except so far as the acts of Mr. Cabell were authorized in advance by the defendant or sanctioned or approved or ratified by him with full knowledge. Starting out with the fact that it cannot be held that in the beginning the defendant gave any authority to Mr. Cabell, except in regard to "captured property," we find that he impressed upon Mr. Cabell the fact that he was authorized only to take cotton belonging to the government, and nothing beyond the specific cotton which Mr. Cabell had named; that the proceedings Mr. Cabell was authorized to take in regard to such cotton were proceedings under the Act of March 12, 1863, to collect it and ship it so that it might be sold, and that the representations made in regard to all of the cotton by Mr. Cabell to the defendant, after it was shipped to New York, were such as to indicate that it was "government cotton," and to warrant the defendant in fairly regarding it as cotton which had been "captured" within the act, and we think the defendant had the right to treat it as cotton to be sold under the act and to see that its proceeds were paid into the Treasury to await adjudication by the Court of Claims, and was not called upon to take upon himself the responsibility of restoring the cotton or its proceeds to Mr. Lamar under any representations which are shown to have been made to him by Mr. Lamar in regard to the ownership of the cotton or in chanroblesvirtualawlibrary