Case: Calvin L. Gilbert v. The United States
Abbreviation: Gilbert v. United States
Decision Date: 1868-12
Docket Number: 
Citation: 4 Ct. Cl. 585
Volume: 4
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: Calvin L. Gilbert v. The United States.
Judges: 
Pages: 585–587

Head Matter:
Calvin L. Gilbert v. The United States.
On the Proofs.
Claimant seeks compensation for cotton seised in the city of /Savannah. Me proves his loyalty, ownership, and the seizure, and that the net proceeds of the cotton were paid into the Treasury. Mo principle of law is stated in the opinion of the court, but the case is inserted here iit compliance with the statute requiring all the decisions to he. printed. See act 17th March, 1866, (14 Stat. L., § 3, p. 9.J
Messrs. Riddle and Leslci for the claimant:
This case is brought into court under the third section of the act of March 12,1863, to recover the proceeds of sale of twenty-four bales of upland cotton, the property of the claimant, seized or “ captured” by the United States military autborities at Savannah, upon the occupation of the city by General Sherman’s army in December, 1865.
The official return from the War Department shows that twenty-four bales of upland cotton, marked C. L. Gilbert, stored at claimant’s store, corner of Congress street and Market Square, registered in the name of C. L. Gilbert, were “captured ” by Lieutenant Colonel H. C. Bansom, quartermaster United States Army, on behalf of the United States.
That the said twenty-four bales of cotton so captured by the United States were thebona fide property of the claimant, and that he is entitled to the proceeds, is fully established.
Mr. B. S. Rale, special counsel of the treasury, for the defendants :
The petition was filed August 8,1867. The defendants insist on the statute of limitations.
No proof, is made of the receipt of the cotton by treasury agents, or payment of the proceeds into the treasury. The cotton is not traced beyond the possession of Colonel Bansom, the quartermaster.
There is no sufficient proof that the claimant did not give •. aid or comfort to the rebellion and to persons engaged in it. He seems to have been in service as a militiaman in 1861 or 1862, and no proof is given that the service was compulsory.

Opinion:
Loring, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court:
The claimant claims against the United States the net proceeds of twenty-four bales of upland cotton.
And the court find the facts to be, that the petitioner was a merchant in Savannah, in the State of Georgia, and previous to the capture of the city, owned and had in his possession twenty-four bales of upland cotton.
After the capture of the city, and on or about the 6th of January, 1865, an order having been made by the military authorities for all persons owning cotton to report the same, the petitioner reported his cotton, according to the order, and it was taken possession of by the military authorities, and afterward sold by the United States, and the net proceeds, amounting to four thousand aud eight dollars, paid into the Treasury of the United States.
The evidence shows that the petitioner purchased the cotton in 1862; and it was stored by him in his warehouse and marked with his name, and taken from his warehouse by the United States on January 25,1865.
He was of northern birth and a loyal citizen, and never gave voluntary aid or comfort to the rebellion. He was forced into a company of the State militia, which was organized for local protection, and served there unwillingly. '
And on these facts the court find that the petitioner is entitled to judgment against the United States for the said net proceeds of said twenty-four bales of cotton, amounting to the sum •of four thousand five hundred and seventy dollars and thirty-two cents ($4,570 32.)