Court Opinion

ID: 9416885
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 19:57:44.425642+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:55.906663
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice BRADLEY,
dissenting:
I dissent from the judgment of the court in this case. A resolution adopted by the common council of an insurgent city just before its occupation by our armies, for the purpose of keeping any class of property out of its hands by destroying the same, is a sheer act of war, and no contract or stipulation for indemnity to persons whose property was thus destroyed had auy validity after the collapse of the Confederacy. The owners of tobacco, cotton, or machinery destroyed on similar occasions are just as much entitled to set up stipulations for indemnity. The wounded soldier has just as good a right to claim damages from the Confederate soldier who wounded him.