Case: SPROTT'S CASE. Walter D. Sprott v. The United States
Abbreviation: Sprott v. United States
Decision Date: 1872-12
Docket Number: 
Citation: 8 Ct. Cl. 499
Volume: 8
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: SPROTT’S CASE. Walter D. Sprott v. The United States.
Judges: 
Pages: 499–500

Head Matter:
SPROTT’S CASE. Walter D. Sprott v. The United States.
On the Proofs.
During the rebellion the rebel government appoints agents for the purchase of cotton, who malee purchases. Of cotton thus purchased by various agents three hundred bales are sold to the claimant in March, 1865, for 10 cents per pound in the currency of the United States. The sale is made by the agent as of cotton belonging to tho Confedes'ate States, and it is so understood at the time by the claimant anil is purchased as such. The purpose of the sale is to procure money to purchase munitions of war, but this is not disclosed by the agent at the time. The purgóse of the claimant is not to aid the Confederate States, but to buy cotton at its marlcet value, he regarding it as a mere business transaction. At the time of sale he is a resident within the Confederate lines. The cotton so bought is subsequently captured, and the claimant brings his suit for the proceeds upon the ground that he was the oioner.
I. The government of the Confederate States was an unlawful assemblage, without corporate power to take, hold, or convey a valid title to property, real or personal.
II. A person during the rebellion residing within the insurrectionary district was chargeable with notice of the treasonable intent of the Confederate government in the sales which it made of cotton for the purpose of raising money to purchase munitions of war, and the transaction was forbidden by the laws of the United States, and wholly void, so that the purchaser acquired no title to the property thus bought.
The Reporters’ statement of the ease:
This case being decided immediately before the adjournment of the court for the vacation, no opinion was read, but the court found tbe facts, so that the question involved might go to the Supreme Court for its decision. The legal conclusions arrived at were announced.
The following are the facts found:
At different times during the years 1864 and 1865 large quantities of cotton were .purchased by the agents of the Confederate States for the treasonable purpose of maintaining the war of the rebellion against the Government of the United States. Of cotton thus purchased by various agents in Claiborne County, Mississippi, three hundred bales were sold to the claimant by an agent in March, 1865, for 10 cents a pound in the currency of the United States. The sale was made by the agent as of cotton belonging to the Confederate States, and it was understood by the claimant at the time of purchase to be the property of the rebel government, and was purchased as such. The agent had been specially instructed by the Confederate government “to sell any and all cotton he could for the purpose of raising money to purchase munitions of war and supplies for the Confederate army,” but the purpose of the sale was not disclosed to the claimant, whose purpose was not to aid the Confederate States, he .buying the cotton at its market value and regarding it as a mere business transaction of “ cotton for cash.” The cotton was delivered to him at the time when the money was paid, he then being a resident of Claiborne County, within the Confederate lines.
Mr. George Taylor for the claimant.
Mr. McCammon for the defendants.
The following conclusions of law upon the facts before quoted were stated:

Opinion:
Pee cubiam:
1. The government of the Confederate States was an unlawful assemblage, without corporate power to take, hold, or convey a valid title to property, real or personal.
2. The claimant was chargeable with notice of the treasonable intent of the sale by the Confederate government, and the transaction was forbidden by the laws of the United States, and wholly void, so that the claimant acquired no title to the property which is the subject of suit.