Case: WILLIAM A. CHISHOLM v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Chisholm v. United States
Decision Date: 1884-04-14
Docket Number: No. 13422
Citation: 19 Ct. Cl. 435
Volume: 19
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: WILLIAM A. CHISHOLM v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Pages: 435–436

Head Matter:
WILLIAM A. CHISHOLM v. THE UNITED STATES.
[No. 13422.
Decided April 14, 1884.]
On the Facts.
In March, 1863, realty in South Carolina belonging to the claimant’s wife is sold for taxes. A surplus arising therefrom is in the Treasury.
"Where realty in South Carolina belonging to a wife was sold for a direct national tax, the surplus in the Treasury, being a chose inaction, accrued to the husband, according to the law of that State, and he may maintain an action therefor under the Act 6tk February, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 640).
The Reporters’ statement of the case:
This action the claimant brought by the voluntary filing of his petition. The following are the facts as found by the court:
Í. Littlewood Point,” the real estate described in the petition, was sold for direct taxes March 10,1863. The claimant’s wife was the owner thereof at the time of sale.
II. At such sale it was sold to the United States for $300; all costs and charges against the property amounted to $33.36.
Mr. William F. Farle for the claimant.
Mr. John 8. Blair (with whom was the Assistant Attorney-General) for the defendants.

Opinion:
Weldon, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court:
On the 10th of March, 1863, the estate described in finding I, was sold for taxes due the United States j and at such sale the United States purchased the property for the sum of $300— there being at that time due as taxes, penalty, interest and costs, the sum of $33.36. This claim is brought to recover the difference between the, amount bid and the amount chargeable against the property, under the act of February 6, 1863. (12 Stat. L., 304.)
The only objection urged against the claimant's right to recover is, that at the time of sale his wife was not the owner of the land; but that the same was devised to her, by the will of her father, who died in the latter part of the year 1865. That issue is, by the finding of the court, settled in favor of the claimant. The surplus being a chose in action by the common law, and the law of South Carolina, where the land is situated, the husband's right to recover is complete.
It is therefore the judgment of the court that the plaintiff recover of the defendants the sum of $266.64.