Case Name: Eliza Hilborn v. The United States
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1867-12
Citations: 3 Ct. Cl. 270
Docket Number: 
Parties: Eliza Hilborn v. The United States.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 270–272

Head Matter:
Eliza Hilborn v. The United States.
On the Proofs.
A widow residing in Charleston during the rebellion contributes from scanty means aid to the suffering Ónited States prisoners. She also harbors and shelters some who escape.
Proof that a widow residing in Charleston during the rebellion contributed from, scanty means aid to suffering United States prisoners, and that she harbored and sheltered some who escaped, is satisfactory proof of loyalty under the “ Abandoned or captured properly act.” (12 Stat. L., p. 820.)
Messrs; Owen and Wilson for the claimant:
This is an action brought under the act of March 12, 1863, to recover the proceeds of 7 bales of cotton belonging to the plaintiff, seized and taken from her at Charleston, South Carolina, after its evacuation in 18.65.
She came from the State of Maine, and had lived in Charleston for fifteen years. Her cotton was stored and seized along with that of Benjamin Beils, who was her son-in-law, and the same proof of seizure applies to both, and reference is made to the evidence and argument in his case.
1. As to the loyalty of Mrs. Hilborn.
A widow, fifty-eight years old, whose fortune consisted of 7 bales of cotton, could not be expected to give many demonstrations of her loyalty to the United States, residing, as she did, in the city of Charleston during the rebellion; but she makes such a showing of active aid and warm sympathy for the suffering and wounded soldiers fighting under the old flag, as to leave no doubt in the minds of any one reading the evidence as to her loyalty to the United States.
Robert H. Hearney, a respectable, intelligent, and wealthy colored 'man says:
“ She often was at my house, and I at her’s. From her frequent conversations I know she was a loyal woman. I could not tell how many times I heard her • talk — times without number. I mean very often. She would speak in favor of the Yankee forces, saying that some day or other they would get here and give some ease from the distresses we were laboring under. I regarded her as a Union woman during the war. I have never heard her talk in favor of the confederacy, and never heard her talk against the United States. I am a colored man.
“ I have heard other people speak of her as a Union woman. I do not know of her visiting hospitals. I talked with her very often. I ought to be a Union man if I was not. I do not know anything but the Union. She always wanted the Union troops to win. I owned large property, and bought some of our people out on time to prevent them being sold into other slavery. Some of them I afterwards gave their time to, and some of them paid for it themselves.”
2. As to her ownership of the cotton.
The return of the Secretary of War, from the report of Colonel Ransom, admits the taking of 7 bales, the property of Mrs. Hilborn; and the evidence in Reils’s case shows there were 40 bales taken from his house, of which 33 were his own and 7 were Mrs. Hilborn’s.
The Assistant Solicitor for defendants.

Opinion:
Casey, C. J.,
delivered the opinion of the court :
The claimant is a widowlady, resident, during the war, in Charleston, South Carolina. She was originally from the State of Maine. She owned 7 bales of cotton when Charleston was captured in the winter of 1865 by the Union army. This cotton was taken by the United States, shipped to New York, sold, and the proceeds are in the treasury of the United States. It is to recover these proceeds she brings this suit. The proofs leave no doubt whatever upon, our minds of her bona fide ownership of the property. Her loyalty is as clearly and distinctly made out. Though in humble life and moderate circumstances, she contributed again and again " the widow's mite " to the relief of Union prisoners. Union officers escaping from southern prisons found a hiding place and shelter under her roof. The least the United States ought to do is to return to her the residue of the proceeds of the sale of her property. And as it is all the láw allows us to do,-wo award her the sum of $918 40, being the net proceeds of 7 bales of upland cotton.