Case: Robert Erwin, appellant, v. The United States, appellees
Abbreviation: Erwin v. United States
Decision Date: 1878-12-02
Docket Number: 
Citation: 14 Ct. Cl. 577
Volume: 14
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: Robert Erwin, appellant, v. The United States, appellees.
Judges: 
Pages: 577–577

Head Matter:
(13 C. Cls. R., 49; 97 U. S. R., 392.)
Robert Erwin, appellant, v. The United States, appellees.
On the claimcmfs Appeal.
A member of a copartnership owns cotton, which is captured. Subsequently the firm-goes into banlvruptcy, amd the partnership and individual assets are assigned. The schedules of individual assets contain this claim; but the copy given to the assignee does not contain the item, andhe is, in fact, ignorant of it. He sells amd transfers to the partner who owned the cotton “ all the remaining assets of the late firm.” A private act is passed authorizing the court below to take-' jurisdiction of the claim under the provisions of the Abandoned or captured property Act. The claimant brings his suit for the proceeds of the cotton.
The court helow holds: (1) That the owner of captured cotton who can trace the proceeds of his property into the Treasury has a proprietary interest in them, which, under an assignment in bankruptcy, passed to the assignee; (2) That such interest, being vested in the assignee, was not retransferred to the claimant (the bankrupt) by the alleged sale and transfer by the assignee; (3) That the Act February 5,1877, “for relief of Robert Fnvin” (19 Stat. L., 509), does not enlarge the rights of the claimant to the proceeds of his cotton in the Treasury. Judgment for the defendants. The claimant appeals.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds. The Supreme Court also holds that the Act to prevent frauds upon the Treasury, 26th February, 1853 (10 Stat. L., p. 170) does not prohibit the transfer of a claim by operation of law.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Fieed
delivered tb.e opinion of the Supreme Court, December 2, 1878.