Case: CUTNER'S CASE. Solomon Cutner, for the use of Schiffer & Co., Appellant, v. The United States
Abbreviation: Cutner ex rel. Schiffer & Co. v. United States
Decision Date: 1873-10
Docket Number: 
Citation: 9 Ct. Cl. 4
Volume: 9
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: CUTNER’S CASE. Solomon Cutner, for the use of Schiffer & Co., Appellant, v. The United States.
Judges: 
Pages: 4–6

Head Matter:
CUTNER’S CASE. Solomon Cutner, for the use of Schiffer & Co., Appellant, v. The United States.
(6 Court of Claims R., p. 415; 17 Wallace R., p. 617.)
(On the claimants Appeal.)
In February, 1865, after the capture of Savannah, the owner of cotton reports it to the Quartermaster Department, audit is seized. Subsequent to the seizure he sells and transfers it by bill of sale to merchants in New Fork, who hold no permit to trade in the insurrectionary districts. Suit is brought in the name of the vendor to the use of the vendees, to recover the net proceeds in the Treasury. The court decides that the vendees are the real claimants, and that the transfer to them, in March, 1865, was in violation of the Non-intercourse Act, and did, not pass a valid title to the cotton. Judgment for the defendants. The claimant appeals.
I. Where suit is brought in the name of the vendor of cotton, transferred by bill of sale after capture, for the use of the vendee, it cannot be sustained for the benefit of the vendor, if it appears that he received the full consideration of the cotton and has no remaining interest.
II. In March, 1865, commercial intercourse between the'inhabitants of New York and Savannah was still prohibited by the Non-intereowrseAct and the proclamations thereunder, although Savannah was in the ijossession of the United States military forces. Therefore, a merchant in New York, without license to trade in Savannah, could not acquire title to personal property by purchase there, and cannot maintain an action under the ■ Abandoned or captured property act for the proceeds of such property in the Treasury.
The Reporters’ statement of the case:
The facts found by the court below sufficiently appear in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Mr. A. L. Merriman and Mr. A. G. Riddle for the claimant, appellant.
Mr. Assistant Attorney- Getteral Sill for the defendants, ap-pellees.
See JSnsley’s Case, (post-,) which forms the complement of this case.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Bkadley
delivered the opinion of the court:
Solomon Cutner, the claimant in this case, in his petition, states, and .the Court of Claims finds, that he sues for the use of Samuel Schiffer, surviving partner of J. Schiffer & Co. Though a loyal citizen, he was a resident of Georgia, and had the cotton in question (30 bales) on storage in Savannah when • thatplacewas captured by General Sherman, in December, 1864. He duly reported it oh the 23d of February, 1865, and had it registered by the Treasury agents, who took it into custody on the 3d of March. On the 6th of March, 1865, Cutner executed a bill of sale of the cotton to J. Schiffer & Co., of New York, as he states, in consideration of a debt which he was owing them; but the Court of Claims finds that he received at the time, from J. B. Stewart, the attorney and agent of Schiffer & Co., $2,250, the entire consideration named in the bill of sale. Intercourse between the inhabitants of the two belligerent sections was still prohibited when this sale was made. It was, therefore, clearly illegal, unless Schiffer & Co. had a license to trade in Savannah, which the case expressly finds they had not. The sale being illegal, the suit cannot be sustained for the benefit of the vendees. It cannot be sustained for Cutner's own benefit, because he received the full consideration of the cotton and has no interest remaining.
Decree affirmed.