Case: BENJAMIN F. CAMP v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Camp v. United States
Decision Date: 1885-03-02
Docket Number: 
Citation: 20 Ct. Cl. 531
Volume: 20
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: BENJAMIN F. CAMP v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, March 2, 1885.
Pages: 531–532

Head Matter:
BENJAMIN F. CAMP v. THE UNITED STATES.
(15 C. Cls. R., 469; 113 U. S. R., 648.)
On the claimanfs Appeal.
In 1804 an assistant special agent agrees to give tlie claimant one-fourtli of so much of the Eigee cotton as he may bring out. The claimant brings out a large quantity. It is taken from him by a military officer and placed in the government yard. The owner apxiears and brings an action of replevin. The cotton is sold pendente lile by stipulation, and the proceeds are held subject to the suit, which is finally determined against the owner. He then brings a suit in this court for the proceeds under the Abandoned or captured property Act. In 1865 the Secretary of the Treasury makes a payment to the claimant on account of his expenditures, &e., in bringing out the cotton. After the time has elapsed for bringing suits under the Abandoned or captured property Act tlie claimant brings an action on bis contract for one-fourth of the proceeds in the Treasury. Subsequently tlie owner recovers, and all of tlie proceeds are. paid to him.
The court below decides—
(1.) Though an agreement made in 1864 by au assistant special agent of tlie Treasury for the bringing out of cotton was utterly void, yet the Secretary of theTreasury had power subsequently to ratify the transaction.
(2.) Transactions under the Abandoned or captured property Act (12 Sfcat. L., 820) were considered and treated by the government as a distinct business, which was to bo self-supporting, and was not to become a charge on the general Treasury.
(3.) A contract to Taring out cotton for one-fourth cast no general obligation on the defendants to pay the contractor for his services. It was simply an agreement to share in the proceeds of the adventure.
(4.) It constituted no breach of such a contract on the part of the defendants that they held the proceeds of the cotton while they were the subject of litigation, and that they paid away the contractor’s portion to a t.hjrd person, tho owner of the cotton, pursuant to the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction.

Opinion:
The judgment of the court below is affirmed, on the ground that the claimant had no contract with the government, express or implied, and that the action of the Secretary of the Treasury was, under the act of Congress, final.
Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, March 2, 1885.