text:
United States v. Padelford/Opinion of the Court

The Captured and Abandoned Property Act of March 12th, 1863, under which the claim in this case was made, has been frequently under the consideration of the court. In the several cases decided during this term, and especially in the case of United States v. Anderson, it has been held to be remedial in its nature, requiring such a liberal construction as will gave effect to the beneficent intention of Congress. That intention was that all property captured or found abandoned during the war, after the date of the law, should be turned into money under the direction of the Treasury Department; and that the proceeds should be placed in the treasury, subject to the right of any person preferring a claim against any portion of the property, to have the net proceeds restored to him on proof of his ownership, of his right to the proceeds, and that he never gave any aid or comfort to the rebellion.

A later act, passed since the petition of Padelford was filed in the Court of Claims, requires every claimant under the original act to prove affirmatively that he constantly adhered to the United States during the rebellion, and gave no aid or comfort to persons engaged in it. We do not think that this act changed essentially the nature of the proof required of claimants by the former act. The particular description of proof required by the later act seems to be included in the more general description of the earlier. Questions arising under the act of 1868, therefore, need not be further considered in this connection.

The record exhibits the findings of fact by the Court of Claims and its conclusions of law. Among these findings is one that the petitioner 'never gave any voluntary aid or comfort to the late rebellion,'. . . unless certain facts, also found, constitute in law such aid and comfort. On the part of the government it is objected to this finding that it is insufficient, because the statute authorizes relief only on proof that no aid or comfort was given. But we think otherwise. It would violate the soundest maxims of interpretation if we were to construe the act so as to deprive claimants of the benefits intended to be given by it because of aid and comfort to the rebellion not voluntarily given.

But the court also find that the petitioner executed as surety three official bonds, two of commissaries and one of a quartermaster in the military service of the so-called Confederate States, from motives of personal friendship to the principals. No compulsion is alleged. On the contrary, these acts are found to have been voluntary. We cannot doubt that these facts did constitute aid and comfort to the rebellion within the meaning of the act. The finding of the court, qualified as it was, is a virtual finding that the petitioner did give such aid and comfort. The general facts found of opposition to the rebellion, so far as opposition would be tolerated, and of earnest good will to the National cause, establish, doubtless, a strong claim upon the favorable consideration of Congress; but do not warrant the courts in relaxing, by a forced interpretation, a rule which Congress has established for the guidance of the Court of Claims in passing upon claims to the proceeds of abandoned or captured property.

But, in our judgment, it was not necessary to determine this point in this case.

The Court of Claims, in addition to the facts already referred to, found that the cotton was stored in Savannah at the time of its capture, on the 21st of December, 1864; that one-half belonged to the claimant; and that 'afterwards, on the 18th of January, 1865, before any actual seizure or taking possession of the property in question by the military authorities, otherwise than by the capture of the city, the claimant did, in due form of law, take and subscribe the oath of amnesty and allegiance to the United States government prescribed by the President's proclamation of December 8th, 1863, issued in pursuance of the 13th section of the act of Congress, approved July 17th, 1862; that he was not, as to his person or property, within the exceptions of the said proclamation; and that he thenceforth complied with all the requirements and conditions named in the said act and proclamation, and kept and maintained said oath of allegiance and amnesty inviolate.' Upon this finding several questions arise.

And, first, was the property of the petitioner captured within the meaning of the act before it was actually seized and taken into military possession?

As early as the 3d of July, 1863, the Secretary of the Treasury, in a circular letter of instructions addressed to the supervising special agents of the department, charged with the duty of collecting abandoned and captured property under the act of March 12th, 1863, defined captured property as property 'which had been seized or taken from hostile possession by the military and naval forces of the United States.' This definition must be taken as the interpretation practically given to the act by the department of the government charged with its execution; and we think it correct. In the case of Mrs. Alexander's Cotton, it was determined that cotton, though private property, was a proper subject of capture by the National forces, during the recent civil war. The court regarded this particular species of property as excepted, by its peculiar character and by circumstances, from the general rule of international law which condemns the seizure of the property of private persons not engaged in actual hostilities, though residing in a hostile territory or region. But the case contains no intimation that such property can be considered as captured before actual seizure. The rule, we think, is otherwise. Rights of possession in private property are not disturbed by the capture of a district of country, or of a city or town, until the captor signifies by some declaration or act, and, generally, by actual seizure, his determination to regard a particular description of property as not entitled to the immunity usually conceded in conformity with the humane maxims of public law.

Rights of possession in public property belonging to the hostile organization, or used in actual hostilities, depend on different principles. Such rights are transferred at once to the captor, upon the capture of the place in which the property may be.

The principles just stated in respect to private property may be further illustrated by reference to the case of The Venice. That vessel, with a cargo of cotton, was lying in Lake Ponchartrain at the time of the capture of New Orleans, and was, doubtless, within the discretion of the captors, subject to seizure, though private property. But Flag Officer Farragut and Major-General Butler, commanding respectively the naval and military forces of the Union, thought proper to give distinct assurances, before and after surrender, of safety and protection to the rights of persons and property. And this court held that these assurances expressed the general policy of the government, to respect and enforce those rights, whenever, in any part of the insurgent country, the authority of the National government should be fully re-established. In accordance with these principles, the Venice and her cargo, which were seized, some days after the capture of the city, by a ship of war of the United States, were restored, by the decree of this court, to their private owner.

Applying the principles above stated to the case before us, three propositions seem to be established: (1.) That the cotton of the petitioner was, by the general policy of the government, exempt from capture after the National forces took possession of Savannah. (2.) That this policy was subject to modification by the government, or by the commanding general, in the exercise of his military descretion. (3.) That the right of possession in private property is not changed, in general, by capture of the place where it happens to be, except upon actual seizure in obedience to the orders of the commanding general.

It appears as matter of fact that the property of the petitioner was not seized until after the 18th of January, 1865. Whether it was then seized in pursuance of any order, either particular or general, emanating from competent military authority, does not appear. But we may assume that it was.

And, then, the next question in this case is to be considered, namely, what was the condition or status of the petitioner at that time; and how far was the liability of his property to seizure affected by that status or condition?

The findings of the court show clearly enough that the petitioner disapproved of the rebellion; opposed it as far as he thought opposition prudent or safe; and was gratified by the restoration of the National authority. It appears further, that on the 18th of January, 1865, he testified his adhesion to the constitutional government of the Union by taking the oath prescribed by the proclamation of pardon issued by President Lincoln on the 8th of December, 1863; that he was not within any of the exceptions of the proclamation; and that he has faithfully kept his oath.

This proclamation, if it needed legislative sanction, was fully warranted by the act of July 17th, 1862, which authorized the President, at any time thereafter, to extend pardon and amnesty to persons who had participated in the rebellion, with such exceptions as he might see fit to make. That the President had power, if not otherwise yet with the sanction of Congress, to grant a general conditional pardon, has not been seriously questioned. And this pardon, by its terms, included restoration of all rights of property except as to slaves and as against the intervening rights of third persons.

Now we have already seen that at the time when the petitioner took the prescribed oath no right of any third party had intervened; for even if it could be admitted that a right of the government derived from capture is an intervening right of a third person within the meaning of the proclamation, it is certain that no such right accrued to the government until actual seizure, which was after the pardon had taken full effect. In the case of Garland, this court held the effect of a pardon to be such 'that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence;' and in the case of Armstrong's Foundry, we held that the general pardon granted to him relieved him from a penalty which he had incurred to the United States. It follows that at the time of the seizure of the petitioner's property he was purged of whatever offence against the laws of the United States he had committed by the acts mentioned in the findings, and relieved from any penalty which he might have incurred. It follows further the if the property had been seized before the oath was taken, the faith of the government was pledged to its restoration upon the taking of the oath in good faith. We cannot doubt that the petitioner's right to the property in question, at the time of the seizure, was perfect, and that it remains perfect, notwithstanding the seizure.

But it has been suggested that the property was captured in fact if not lawfully; and that the proceeds having been paid into the Treasury of the United States, the petitioner is without remedy in the Court of Claims unless proof is made that he gave no aid or comfort to the rebellion. The suggestion is ingenious, but we do not think it sound. The sufficient answer to it is that after the pardon no offence connected with the rebellion can be imputed to him. If, in other respects, the petitioner made the proof which, under the act, entitled him to a decree for the proceeds of his property, the law makes the proof of pardon a complete substitute for proof that he gave no aid or comfort to the rebellion. A different construction would, as it seems to us, defeat the manifest intent of the proclamation and of the act of Congress which authorized it. Under the proclamation and the act, the government is a trustee, holding the proceeds of the petitioner's property for his benefit; and having been fully reimbursed for all expenses incurred in that character, loses nothing by the judgment, which simply awards to the petitioner what is his own.

These views require the affirmance of the judgment of the Court of Claims, and it is

ACCORDINGLY AFFIRMED.


text: Talk:United States v. Padelford/Opinion of the Court

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Michigan Bank v. Eldred

ERROR to the Circuit Court for Wisconsin, the case being this:

The Michigan Insurance Bank brought suit against Anson Eldred, Wm. Balcom, and Elisha Eldred, composing the firm of Eldreds & Balcom, as indorsers of a promissory note dated June 12th, 1861, given by one F. E. Eldred, and the body and signature of which were in his handwriting.

The summons was served upon Anson Eldred, the only defendant residing within the District of Wisconsin, and the only one who appeared in the cause. The execution of the note, its indorsement by Elisha Eldred, one of the firm of Eldreds & Balcom, with the firm name, demand of payment from the maker, non-payment by him, and notice to the indorsers of non-payment, were all proved. The date of the note, as originally written by the maker, F. E. Eldred, had been August 12th, 1861; and the word 'June' had been written by him over the word 'August.'

The defendant, Anson Eldred, then offered to read in evidence a clause of the articles of copartnership of the firm of Eldreds & Balcom, to the effect that Elisha Eldred, one of the firm, and who, as above stated, had indorsed this note in the firm name, had bound himself not to use the firm name except for the benefit of the said joint business. The evidence was objected to by the defendant, but the objection was overruled, and testimony received.

There was no pretence that the bank had any knowledge of the articles of copartnership or of the purpose for which the copartnership's name in this instance had been used.

The defendant then introduced the deposition of F. E. Eldred, the maker of the note, and the brother of Anson Eldred, the defendant. He testified that the note was in his handwriting; that the indorsement of Eldreds & Balcom was made by Elisha Eldred, one of the firm; that he transferred the note as security for a loan about the time the note bore date. He said further:

'I had an arrangement with the firm of Eldreds & Balcom, by which they indorsed my notes and I indorsed theirs; and the indorsements were made in blank, and were filled by the holders as they wanted to use them. This note was indorsed in that way, and this arrangement was known to Anson Eldred as well as to the other partners. The word 'June' was written by me, and was written by me before I used the note.'

The defendant then read depositions, which showed that this note was transferred to the bank as collateral security for moneys lent to F. E. Eldred, the maker. Here the defendant rested, and upon this evidence the judge, in charging, made use of the following language:

'If the note in suit was never actually negotiated to the bank, but got up by Eldred and accepted by the bank in pursuance of a corrupt agreement between said Eldred and the bank to defraud the defendant, then the plaintiff cannot recover.'

The testimony was without the least proof tending to show that this note had not been negotiated to the bank, or any tending to prove that it was 'got up by Eldred and accepted by the bank in pursuance of a corrupt agreement between said Eldred and the bank to defraud the defendant.'Verdict and judgment having gone for the defendant, the bank brought the case here.

Mr. Lynde, for the plaintiff in error, submitted as too plain for argument,

1. That the paper having been negotiable paper, and received by the bank before due for a valuable consideration, the court had erred in allowing the clause from the articles of copartnership of Eldreds & Balcom to be read, without proof that the bank had notice of the clause.

2. That the court had charged the jury upon a supposed or conjectural state of facts, of which no evidence has been offered; inducing them perhaps to indulge in conjectures, instead of to weigh the testimony; a sort of charge which was decided by this court, in United States v. Breitling, to be 'clearly error.'

Mr. Cary submitted that the transactions, from beginning to end, were irregular; that when Elisha Eldred, who in indorsing under any circumstances acted in violation of his duty to his partners, indorsed here, he indorsed in blank, in blank as to both dates and amounts; and that the instrument in its altered date bore on its face such marks of irregularity as to justify the charge.

To this it was replied, that F. E. Eldred was authorized by the arrangement between him and the firm to fill up the blanks; dates as well as amounts. He wrote the whole note originally, and the word 'June' afterwards; but the word was written before the instrument was negotiated.

Mr. Justice CLIFFORD stated the case, and delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Michigan Bank v. Eldred


text: Talk:Michigan Bank v. Eldred

title: Talk:Michigan Bank v. Eldred


text:
Michigan Bank v. Eldred/Opinion of the Court

Promissory notes, given for the payment of money, without any condition or contingency, and payable to order or bearer, are as much commercial instruments as bills of exchange, and the title to the same, and their transfer from one person to another, are governed and regulated by the same rules of commercial law.

Authorities may be found where it is held that it is not essential to the character of a promissory note or bill of exchange that it should be negotiable, and that other words besides the words 'or order,' or the words 'or bearer,' may be employed to express the quality of negotiability; but it is not necessary to discuss those topics, as the inquiry before the court has respect to the execution, transfer, and title of a negotiable promissory note in the ordinary form.

Examined carefully, the pleadings and evidence exhibit the following facts, which are material to the present investigation: Claiming title to the note in question, the plaintiffs instituted the present suit against the defendant and one Uri Balcom and Elisha Eldred, alleging that they were copartners in trade under the firm name of Eldreds & Balcom. They, the defendants, were engaged in business both in Chicago and Milwaukee, and the record shows that they were sued as indorsers of the note described in the declaration. Only one of their number, to wit, the defendant, resided in that State, and he only was served with process. Besides a special count against the defendants as the indorsers of the note, the declaration also contained the common counts, to which was annexed a copy of the note, as notice that the note would be offered in evidence under those counts. Process having been served, the present defendant appeared, and pleaded the general issue, and the parties went to trial, and the verdict and judgment were for the defendant. Exceptions were duly taken by the plaintiffs to the rulings and instructions of the court, and they sued out this writ of error, and removed the cause here for re-examination.

Some further reference to the facts proved at the trial is necessary, in order that the precise nature of the questions presented in the bill of exceptions may be understood.

Founded as the declaration was upon a promissory note, it was only necessary for the plaintiffs, under the general issue, to prove the execution of the note, the signature of the indorsers, the demand of payment of the maker, the dishonor of the note, and notice of the dishonor, and non-payment to the indorsers. Having proved those facts, they introduced the note in evidence, of which the following is a copy:

DETROIT, June 12, 1861.

$4000. Sixty days after date I promise to pay to the order of Eldreds & Balcom four thousand dollars at the Michigan Insurance Bank, value received.

(Signed) F. E. ELDRED.

Indorsed on the back of the note is the name of the firm to which the defendant belongs, to wit, Eldreds & Balcom, and the allegations of demand, protest, and notice of dishonor and non-payment were fully proved.

Witnesses were examined upon both sides, from whose testimony, as reported in the bill of exceptions, it appears that the maker of the note was engaged in business at Detroit, in the State of Michigan; that he and the firm of which the defendant is a member entered into an arrangement to interchange accommodation indorsements for business purposes; that the understanding was that the firm should indorse whatever paper he, the maker of that note, should find it necessary to use in his business, and that he, in consideration thereof, should indorse their paper intended for discount, to such an extent as they might desire.

Pursuant to that arrangement the respective parties indorsed numerous blank notes for each other, and it appears that the senior partner of the firm indorsed at one time some fifty or fifty-five blank notes of the kind, and that the defendant knew what was done, and advised that the indorsements should be made. Packages of such blank notes, signed by the maker of the note in controversy, were sent by express to that firm for their indorsement, and when they were indorsed in blank they were returned through the same channel to the party by whom they were forwarded, and it appears that the note described in the declaration is one of the notes indorsed by the senior partner of the firm.

Approved as the arrangement was by the defendant, he has no cause for complaint; and it also appears that the maker of the note borrowed money of the plaintiffs and that he indorsed the note to them as collateral security in the regular course of business.

Depositions were also introduced by the defendant, and he offered in evidence the third article in the copartnership agreement of the indorsers of the note, which reads as follows: 'That neither of the parties shall employ any of the moneys, goods, or effects belonging to the said copartnership, or engage the credits thereof, except for the benefit of the said joint business.'

Seasonable objection was taken by the plaintiffs to the introduction of that article as evidence, upon the ground that it was irrelevant and incompetent, but the court overruled the objection and the same was read to the jury, and the plaintiffs then and there excepted to the ruling of the court. Instructions, supposed to be pertinent to the issue, were then given by the court to the jury, to which no exceptions were taken, but the court also instructed the jury to the effect that if the note in suit was never actually negotiated to the bank, but was got up by the maker of the note, and was accepted by the bank, in pursuance of a corrupt agreement between the maker of the note and the bank to defraud the defendant, then the plaintiffs cannot recover; to which instruction the plaintiffs then and there excepted.

Objection, in the first place, is taken by the plaintiffs in argument of the ruling of the court in admitting in evidence the third article of the copartnership agreement. Attempt is made to sustain that ruling, upon the ground that the evidence tended to show that the partner who indorsed the note with the firm name was unauthorized 'to engage the credit' of the firm except for the joint business of the company; but there are two decisive answers to that suggestion: (1.) That the indorsements were made in pursuance of a previous understanding and arrangement between the firm and the maker of the note, and the evidence reported in the bill of exceptions shows that the defendant advised his partner to indorse the parcel of notes which contained the one in controversy. (2.) That the plaintiffs had no knowledge of the contents of the articles of copartnership, nor of any fact or circumstance showing, or tending to show, that the indorsement was made without authority. On the contrary, the maker of the note, examined by the defendant, testified that the indorsement on the note described in the declaration was made by one of the partners of the defendant; that he, the witness, transferred the note to the plaintiffs as security for a loan made at the time the note bears date; that he had an arrangement with that firm that they should indorse his notes and that he would indorse their notes; that the indorsements were made in blank, and were filled up by the respective makers as they wanted to use the notes in their business, and that the note in controversy was indorsed in that way with the knowledge of the defendant as well as the other partners.

Unaccompanied by evidence showing, or tending to show, that the plaintiffs had knowledge of the restriction contained in the copartnership agreement, or the subsequent introduction of such evidence, it is quite clear that the article of the copartnership agreement read to the jury was irrelevant and incompetent, as it clearly appeared that the plaintiffs were indorsers for value at the date of the note in the usual course of business, without notice of any equities between the antecedent parties.

Such a party is regarded, in the commercial law, as a bon a fide holder of the negotiable instrument, and the rule is irrepealably established by the decisions of this court that the indorser under those circumstances takes the title unaffected by any equities between the antecedent parties to the instrument, and may recover thereon, although, as between the antecedent parties to the same, the transaction may be without any legal validity.

Bills of exchange or promissory notes may be transferred by indorsement, or, when indorsed in blank or made payable to bearer, they are transferable by delivery; and the settled rule of law is, that if such a bill or note, so indorsed or made payable to bearer, be misappropriated by one to whom it was intrusted, or even if it be lost or stolen and is subsequently negotiated for a valuable consideration to a third person, who receives it in the usual course of business, without knowledge of the condition annexed to the possession of the instrument, or of the means by which the possession was acquired, his title is wholly unaffected by any such breach of trust, or by any such unauthorized or felonious acquisition or appropriation of the note, and may recover the amount against any of the prior parties to the instrument.

Nothing can be inferred adverse to the authority of the member of the firm to make the indorsement from the fact that the blanks in the note were not filled up when he received it from the maker, as it is fully proved that the maker of the note was authorized by the arrangement between him and the firm to fill up the blanks and insert the date and the amount of the notes as he found it necessary to use the same in his business, and that defendant, as one of the partners, had knowledge of that arrangement.

Suppose, however, there was no proof of such knowledge on the part of the defendant, still it is well settled law that where a party to a negotiable bill of exchange or promissory note containing blanks, intrusts it to the custody of another, whether the blanks are in the date or the amount of the note, and whether it be for the purpose of accommodating the person to whom it was intrusted, or to be used to raise money for his own benefit, such bill or note, especially if it be indorsed in blank, or is made payable to bearer, carries on its face an implied authority, in the person to whom it is so intrusted, to fill up the blanks in his discretion; and, as between such party to the bill or note and innocent third parties, holding the bill or note as transferees for value, in the usual course of business, the person to whom it is so intrusted must be deemed to be the agent of the party who committed such bill or note to his custody; and the legal conclusion is, that in filling up the blanks he acted under the authority of that party, and with his approbation and consent.

So, where a party signs his name to a blank paper, as a means of accommodating another person, he thereby authorizes that person to whom he delivers the paper, and for whose accommodation he signed it, to fill up the instrument, and the conclusion of law is, that the filling up the instrument under those circumstances, inasmuch as it is done by the authority of the party who signed the paper, is his act, and that as between him and innocent holders of the instrument after it is filled up, he is bound by his signature, if the instrument was negotiated for value before it fell due, and in the usual course of business.

Testimony was introduced by the plaintiff to show that the indorsement of the firm name on the back of the note was made before the same was negotiated to them as security for the discounts to the maker, but the introduction of such evidence was unnecessary, as the presumption of law, in the absence of opposing testimony, is that such an indorsement, if without date, was made at the time the bill or note was executed, and before the same was negotiated to the holder.

II. Apart from that ruling of the court, the plaintiffs also contend that the instruction given to the jury, as recited in the bill of exceptions, is erroneous, and that the judgment should be reversed on that account, even if it be held that the ruling of the court in admitting in evidence the third article of the copartnership agreement is correct.

Contradicted as the first assumption of the instruction is by the testimony of the maker of the note, it does not seem to require any extended argument to show that it is unfounded, especially at it finds no support in any fact or circumstance introduced in evidence by either party.

Discounts were obtained of the plaintiffs by the maker of the note, and he negotiated the note in controversy to the plaintiffs as security for such loans, transferring the note to them at the time the loans were made.

Parties sometimes obtain discounts on such paper by indorsing their own name on the note, but it is a regular course of business frequently adopted and equally legitimate for a party to give his own note for the amount of the loan, and to negotiate a note like the one in question to the lender as collateral security; and, whether the business is transacted in the one way or the other, the title of the lender of the money to the note negotiated as security for the loan is equally valid to the amount of the money loaned.

But the second assumption of the instruction is even more unjustifiable than the first, as it imputes concerted action, and a corrupt agreement between the maker of the note and the plaintiffs to defraud the defendant, when in point of fact there is not a particle of evidence in the record to sustain the charge, or which has any tendency to support any such theory. When a prayer for instruction is presented to the court, and there is no evidence in the case to support the theory of fact which it assumes, the prayer for instruction should be denied, and if given by the court it is error, as the tendency of such an instruction is to mislead the jury by withdrawing their attention from the legitimate points of inquiry involved in the issue.

It is clearly error in a court, said Chief Justice Taney, in United States v Breitling, to charge the jury upon a supposed or conjectural state of facts, of which no evidence has been offered. Such an instruction presupposes that there is some evidence before the jury which they may think sufficient to establish the facts hypothetically assumed in the charge of the court, and if there is no evidence which they have a right to consider then the charge does not aid them in coming to a correct conclusion, but its tendency is to embarrass and mislead, and may induce them to indulge in conjectures instead of weighing the testimony.

Reference is made to the fact that the word June is written over the word August in the date of the note, showing that the date originally was August, instead of June, as it now is; but the conclusive answer to that suggestion is, that the maker of the note testifies that he wrote the word June as it now is in the date of the note before he negotiated the note to the plaintiffs, and as he was the agent of the firm in filling up the note, the defendant, as between him and the plaintiffs, has no cause of complaint.

JUDGMENT REVERSED, and the cause remanded, with directions to issue

A NEW VENIRE.


text: Talk:Michigan Bank v. Eldred/Opinion of the Court


text:
United States v. Adams (76 U.S. 554)

ON motion to amend a decree of this court affirming a decree of the Court of Claims, stay, mandate, &c. The case was thus:

Adams filed, some time since, a petition in the Court of Claims against the United States, claiming $112,748 for certain mortar-boats, tug-boats, cabins, pilot-houses, and other work, furnished by order of General Fremont in the Western Military District, during the summer of 1861. One of the defences relied on by the United States against it was, that the government had appointed a board of commissioners to hear and determine this claim among others; that in December, 1861, the petitioner had presented it before that board, who after having heard the same, adjusted his accounts, and awarded a balance due him of $95,655, which he had been paid by the government, giving a receipt for the sum in full of all demands. It was not denied by himself that he had received this money; nor by the government that he had received it only under protest.

The Court of Claims gave a decree in favor of his claim, and the United States appealed.

A rule of this court regulating appeals from the Court of Claims prescribes, in respect to the way in which that court shall prepare and certify its record to this court for review, that it make 'a finding of the facts in the case, and the conclusions of law on the facts on which the court founds its judgment or decree; the finding of the facts and the conclusions of law to be stated separately, and certified to this court as part of the record.' In accordance with this rule the Court of Claims, on the appeal by the United States from its decree, did find and certify as part of the record, the facts; stating among them 'that in December, 1861, the petitioner presented to said commission his claim for said mortar-boats, tug-boats, cabins, &c., in two accounts, setting forth the same.'

The appeal was elaborately and ably argued at the last term by Mr. Hoar, Attorney-General, and Mr. Dickey, then Assistant Attorney-General, for the government-they arguing that the settlement and receipt of the money upon the basis of a quantum meruit (which they endeavored to show was the basis on which Adams had received his money), precluded the assertion of the claim made in the Court of Claims-and by Messrs. Carpenter, Carlisle, Corwine, and Wills, contra; who contended that the receipt which had been given, was no bar to the claim.

This court on the appeal reversed the judgment of the court below, giving an opinion which can be seen in the report of the case in 7th Wallace. The main ground of that opinion was thus presented:

'In the view we have taken of the case, the giving of this receipt is of no legal importance. The bar to any further legal demand against the government does not rest upon this acquittance, but upon the voluntary submission of the claims to the board; the hearing and final decision thereon; the receipt of the vouchers containing the sum or amount found due to the claimant; and the acceptance of that amount under an act of Congress providing therefor.'

The court, in that opinion, agreed that the creditors of the government were not bound to present their claims before that board, but might withhold them, and, as the Secretary of War had refused to recognize them, seek relief before Congress or the Court of Claims.

The counsel of Adams-now filing his affidavit to the effect that the finding of fact sent up by the Court of Claims, as part of the case, was not true, but was erroneous; that the petitioner did not present his claim before that board, but, on the contrary, that the accounts were referred to it by General Meigs, at the head to the bureau, before whom this class of accounts had to be presented for adjustment; that it was heard ex parte; and that the materiality of this fact had been discovered since the delivery of the opinion, above mentioned, of this court reversing the judgment of the Court of Claims-moved to amend the decree of this court, reversing the decree of the Court of Claims; and to stay the mandate, in order to enable Adams to obtain a correction of the record from that court, and that the cause might be again heard.

The ground of this motion was, of course, that the record from the Court of Claims was erroneous in a material fact stated in it, and upon which it was supposed that this court mainly placed its judgment of reversal.

It appeared from the affidavit of the appellee, in support of the motion, that this error in the record was observed by him, and known to his counsel, at the argument on the appeal; but that no steps were taken to have it corrected, their belief having been that the action of the board of commissioners could have no binding effect upon the rights of the claimant.

Such substantially, as the court regarded it, was the case as now before it.

But there were certain other facts in the matter which it thought fit also to refer to. They were these: Accompanying the petition and affidavit of Adams, was the original record of the evidence before the Court of Claims. The Secretary of War, in October, 1861, as it showed, suspended the payment of the present claims, among many others originating in the then Western Military District, upon charges of fraud alleged against them, and appointed a board of commissioners to hear and pass upon the same before payment. After the appointment of this board, and when General Meigs was pressed to pay this claim, with others, he constantly advised the claimants that the claims must be heard and adjusted before the board, and, until then, they would not be recognized or paid; and, on the 4th January, 1862, the papers upon which the claims of Adams were founded were, by direction of the General himself, placed before the board, with a request to hear and determine the amount justly due.

This step, taken by General Meigs, was well known to the appellee, who was present in St. Louis at the time, where the board sat. It was true that there was no proof in the record to show that he presented his claims before the board, or that he procured any witnesses to appear before them in the course of their investigations. Four witnesses were examined on the part of the government on the subject of the reasonableness of the prices charged for the mortar-boats, gun-boats, and other work. They proved, if not mistaken, a considerable overcharge in the work and materials. No witnesses were produced on the part of the appellee, nor were those on the part of the government cross-examined; but, on the 13th of January, 1862, he addressed a letter to the board, dated at St. Louis, expressing a desire to submit to them some facts in relation to the construction of the mortar-boats, which constituted the principal item in his accounts. In that letter he states the history of his communications with the Navy Department and with General Meigs on the subject of his plans for the construction of the mortar-boats, and of the adoption of the same by General Fremont, and of the contract for building the same, and closes it by saying that 'when this contract was made, I supposed I would have to pay much higher for materials and labor than I have, and, therefore, the job has been more profitable in figures than I expected. To do this work I had to contract debts to workmen and all classes who have furnished me materials; and claim, as I have in no respect been remiss on my part, the government should deal promptly and liberally with me.'

As mentioned in the earlier part of the reporter's statement, the board of commissioners adjusted Adams's accounts and allowed a balance due to him of $95,655, for which he accepted a voucher and gave a receipt in full; accepting payment of the same under a resolution of Congress, passed soon afterwards, for the payment of claims audited and allowed by this board of commissioners.

Messrs. Wills and B. R. Curtis, in support of the motion.

The Attorney-General, Mr. Hoar, contra.

Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.

title: United States v. Adams (76 U.S. 554)


text: Talk:United States v. Adams (76 U.S. 554)


text:
United States v. Adams (76 U.S. 554)/Opinion of the Court

The court is of opinion that a case has not been presented by the appellee, which would justify it in the exercise of its equitable powers to grant this relief.

The second rule of this court on appeals from the Court of Claims, in respect to making up the record, is as follows: 'A finding of the facts in the case by the said Court of Claims, and the conclusions of law on the facts on which the court founds its judgment or decree. The finding of the facts and the conclusions of law to be stated separately, and certified to this court as part of the record.'

The remedy, in case the Court of Claims falls into a mistake as to the finding of the facts, is familiar. It is by an application to this court to remit the case back for correction, if it be shown, satisfactorily, that a mistake has been committed.

In the case before us, it is admitted that the mistake was known to the party and his counsel in season to have had it corrected before hearing; but, relying on its immateriality, no step was taken to have the correction made. We do not doubt but that this opinion was honestly entertained, and that this motion is made in good faith; but it is impossible not to see that, if granted, the precedent might lead to great abuse and delay in the hearing of these cases. We should allow either party to lie by till the cause was decided, and the opinion delivered, and then to apply for the correction, as the exigency of the case might require, or as the materiality of the fact might appear from the ground upon which the decision was placed. On an appeal, the parties are entitled to have all the facts proved in the case before the court below, in the judgment of the court, truly found, and stated in the record, that either deemed material to the decision; and, as we have seen, the remedy is ample to correct any mistakes committed, if applied for prior to the hearing in this court. The court are not willing to go farther, and permit the remedy to be applied after the case is heard and decided, as we fear that such a precedent would work greater injustice and hardship, in its general use and application, than that which may exist in any particular case.

There is another view also, arising out of the facts upon which this motion is founded, which should be stated. Although it is true that the appellee did not present his claims before the board, as stated in the finding in the record on appeal, it cannot, in view of the facts which appear in the original record of the evidence before the Court of Claims, #fn-s-s-s well be denied but that he made himself a party to their proceedings, and took the benefit of the adjustment of his accounts by them, which brings the case within the principle decided in 7th Wallace.

MOTION DENIED.


text: Talk:United States v. Adams (76 U.S. 554)/Opinion of the Court


text:
Hornthall v. The Collector

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for the Southern District of Mississippi; the case being thus:

The Judiciary Act of 1789 limits the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, so far as determined by citizenship, to 'suits between a citizen of the State in which the suit is brought and a citizen of another State.'

An act of 1833, 'to provide further for the collection of duties on imports,' extended the jurisdiction to cases arising under 'the revenue laws of the United States,' where other provision had not been made. And it authorized any person injured, in person or property, on account of any act done 'under any law of the United States for the protection of the revenue or the collection of duties on imports,' to maintain suit in the Circuit Court. It also allowed any person sued in a State court, on account of any act done 'under the revenue laws of the United States,' to remove the cause, by a mode which the act itself set forth, into the Circuit Court of the United States.

With the passage of the internal revenue laws made necessary by the late rebellion, it was doubted by some persons whether this act of 1833 extended to cases under the new enactments. And the internal revenue act of 1864, by its fiftieth section, extended in general words 'the provisions' of the act of 1833 to cases arising under the internal revenue acts.

By an internal revenue act of the 13th July, 1866, however (§ 67), Congress made provision for removing cases from State courts to the Circuit Court, authorizing such removal in a way which it particularized, 'in any case, civil or criminal, where suit or prosecution shall be commenced in any court of any State against any officer of the United States,. . . or against any person acting under or by authority of any such officer, on account of any act done under color of his office,' &c.

And by the sixty-eighth section, immediately following, it 'repealed' the fiftieth section of the act of 1864, with, however, this proviso:

'Provided, That any case which may have been removed from the courts of any State under said fiftieth section to the courts of the United States, shall be remanded to the State court from which it was so removed, with all the records relating to such cases, unless the justice of the Circuit Court of the United States in which such suit or prosecution is pending shall be of opinion that said case would be removable from the court of the State to the Circuit Court under and by virtue of the provisions of this act.'

In this state of the statutes Hornthall & Kuhn, describing themselves in the same as 'partners in trade in the city of Vicksburg, State of Mississippi,' filed a bill against one Keary, described in it as 'collector of internal revenue of the United States for the second collection district of the State of Mississippi,' praying for an injunction to restrain Keary from collecting an internal revenue tax assessed on certain cotton of theirs, which tax they alleged was not due, but which the respondent nevertheless threatened, as they alleged, to collect by distraint of their goods. In the subpoena both parties were described as citizens of the State of Mississippi. On demurrer the court below, sustaining the demurrer, dismissed the bill for want of jurisdiction apparent on its face, and awarding costs to the respondent. The other side took this appeal.

Mr. Hoar, Attorney-General, and Mr. Field, Assistant Attorney-General, for the collector:

The case is both plain and simple. No question as to whether the collector was right or wrong in what he did or threatened to do can trouble this court, nor whether any injunction would lie to restrain him, conceding that he was wrong. We are stopped before getting so far, for the bill does not show affirmatively that the complainants and respondent are citizens of different States; but, on the contrary, shows by implication that they are not. The appeal must, of course, be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Mr. Sharkey, contra:

The assumption of the counsel of the government is not one exactly accurate. The collector is not named in the bill as a citizen of Mississipi, but is sued in his official capacity, without naming his residence. He is sued as an officer of the United States.

But has not the Federal judiciary jurisdiction in all revenue cases? It is supposed that the counsel below acted on this presumption. Without extended argument on this subject, which is far more familiar to the court than it is to the counsel, the case is respectfully submitted.

Mr. Justice CLIFFORD stated the particulars of the case, and delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Hornthall v. The Collector


text: Talk:Hornthall v. The Collector

title: Talk:Hornthall v. The Collector


text:
Hornthall v. The Collector/Opinion of the Court

Owners or holders of cotton, produced within the United States, upon which no tax has been levied, paid, or collected, are required by the act of the thirteenth of July, 1866, as amended, to pay a tax upon the same of two and one-half cents per pound, and the provision is that such tax shall be and remain a lien thereon in the possession of any person whomsoever from the time the act took effect, or the cotton was produced as aforesaid, 'until the same shall have been paid.' Due notice in writing was given by the appellee, as collector of internal revenue for that district, on the ninth of May, 1866, to the appellants, that a tax on three hundred and forty-one bales of cotton, amounting to three thousand one hundred and forty-seven dollars and twenty-three cents, had been assessed against them under that act as amended, by the assessor of that collection district, and that a list of the same in due form had been transmitted to him for collection. Payment of the tax having been delayed beyond the time allowed by law, they were also notified that they had become liable to pay five per cent. additional upon the amount of the same, together with interest from the first day of January preceding the date of the notice, and that, if the tax was not paid within ten days from the service of the notice, the same would be collected by distraint and sale of property. Before the ten days expired the appellants filed their bill of complaint in the Circuit Court for that district, praying that the appellee, as such collector, might be enjoined from enforcing the payment of the tax for several reasons, of which the following are the most material:

1. They admit that, during the winter preceding the filing of the bill of complaint, they shipped from that port three hundred and forty-one bales of cotton, but they allege that the internal revenue tax on the same was duly paid to the collector, or to his legally authorized deputy; that the permits for the shipment were duly issued by that officer, though they cannot be exhibited, as they still remain in his possession; and they also allege that the charge in the notice that the tax on the cotton is unpaid is a fraudulent and corrupt fabrication.

2. That the proceedings threatened by the collector are not authorized by the acts of Congress providing for the collection of such taxes; that such proceedings are applicable only to the collection of taxes on incomes, lecenses, and the like, and not to the collection of the cotton tax, as that is made a specific lien on the cotton, which cannot be removed from the district where it was produced until the tax is paid or a bond given to secure such payment.

Pursuant to the prayer of the bill of complaint an injunction was issued forbidding the collection of the tax until the further order of the court, but on motion of the district attorney the injunction was subsequently dissolved. Required to plead, answer, or demur, the district attorney demurred specially to the bill of complaint, showing for cause: (1.) That it was not the proper remedy for the alleged grievance; that the remedy, if any, was by appeal to the commissioner. (2.) That the Circuit Court has no jurisdiction in equity to enjoin the collection of internal revenue taxes. Both parties were heard, and the court sustained the demurrer, dismissed the bill of complaint, and awarded costs to the respondent, and the complainants appealed to this court.

Jurisdiction of the Circuit Court in the case is denied in argument by the appellee upon two grounds: (1.) Because the parties to the suit are citizens of the same State. (2.) Because the Circuit Court has no power to afford a remedy by injunction for such a grievance; but in the view taken of the case it will not be necessary to examine the second proposition with much particularity, as the first is clearly correct and must prevail.

Controversies between citizens of different States are plainly within the judicial power of the United States, as conferred by the Constitution; and Congress provided in the eleventh section of the Judiciary Act that the Circuit Courts should have original cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several States, of suits between a citizen of the State where the suit is brought and a citizen of another State. Citizenship of the parties to a suit, where it is the foundation of jurisdiction in the Federal courts, must be distinctly averred, so as to show not only that they are citizens of different States but also that one of them is a citizen of the State where the suit is brought. Express allegation of the facts material to give jurisdiction is necessary, because such courts are courts of special and not of general jurisdiction, and consequently there is no presumption in favor of their jurisdiction where the facts requisite to show it do not appear in the record. Nothing of the kind is shown in this case, either in the pleadings or in any part of the proceedings in the suit. On the contrary, the complainants are described in the bill of complaint as partners in trade in the city of Vicksburg, State of Mississippi, and the respondent is therein described as the collector of internal revenue of the United States for the second collection district of Mississippi, leaving it to be clearly inferred that both parties are citizens of the same State. But the matter is not left to inference, as the parties are in express terms described as citizens of Mississippi in the subpoena which was issued at the same time on motion of the complainants.

Unable successfully to deny that proposition, the next suggestion of the appellants is that all revenue cases are within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts, but the suggestion cannot be sustained, as will be seen by reference to the several acts of Congress upon that subject.

Provision was made by the second section of the act of the second of March, 1833, that the jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts should extend to all cases in law or equity arising under the several laws of the United States for which other provisions were not already made by law. Undoubtedly the act was passed for the protection of the officers charged with the collection of import duties, but the same provision was, by the fiftieth section of the act of the thirtieth of June, 1864, extended to cases arising under the laws for the collection of internal duties.

Strong doubts are entertained whether the Circuit Courts, even during the period when that provision was in force, were authorized to enjoin the collection of internal revenue taxes, but it is not necessary to decide the point, as Congress subsequently repealed the fiftieth section of the last-named act, and expressly enacted that the original act should not be so construed as to apply to cases arising under the other sections of the act, or to any act in addition thereto, or in amendment thereof, nor to any case in which the validity or interpretation of said act or acts shall be in issue.

Suits between citizens of different States may still be brought in the Circuit Courts, but where both parties reside in the same State the Circuit Courts have no original cognizance of any case arising under the internal revenue laws. Such cases, when commenced against an officer acting under those laws, in a State court, may be removed, on petition of the defendant, into the Circuit Court for the district, and the jurisdiction of the court is clear beyond dispute, irrespective of the citizenship of the parties; but the act of the second of March, 1867, provides that no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of a tax shall be maintained in any court.

Viewed in any light the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction of this controversy, and consequently this court has no power to grant the relief prayed for in the bill of complaint.

Costs were improperly allowed in the court below, as the case was dismissed for the want of jurisdiction on the face of the pleadings, and in such cases the general rule is that costs will not be allowed in this court. Sometimes an exception to that rule is admitted, as where the defendant in the court below is the defendant in this court, but inasmuch as the costs were improperly awarded in his favor by the Circuit Court, the better opinion is that he is not entitled to the benefit of that exception, as the decree in his favor must be reversed to correct that error.

Decree REVERSED, and cause remanded, with directions to dismiss the bill of complaint, but

WITHOUT COSTS.

Soon after the preceding case was adjudged, there came up and was adjudged another involving the same point of jurisdiction. It was the case of


text: Talk:Hornthall v. The Collector/Opinion of the Court


text:
United States v. Smith (18 U.S. 153)

THIS was an indictment for piracy against the prisoner Thomas Smith, before the Circuit Court of Virginia, on the act of Congress, of the 3d of March, 1819, c. 76. The jury found a special verdict as follows: "We, of the jury, find, that the prisoner, Thomas Smith, in the month of March, 1819, and others, were part of the crew of a private armed vessel, called the Creollo, (commissioned by the government of Buenos Ayres, a colony then at war with Spain,) and lying in the port of Margaritta; that in the month of March, 1819, the said prisoner and others of the crew mutinied, confined their officer, left the vessel, and in the said port of Margaritta, seized by violence a vessel called the Irresistible, a private armed vessel, lying in that port, commissioned by the government of Artigas, who was also at war with Spain; that the said prisoner and others, having so possessed themselves of the said vessel, the Irresistible, appointed their officers, proceeded to sea on a cruize, without any documents or commission whatever; and while on that cruise, in the month of April, 1819, on the high seas, committed the offence charged in the indictment, by the plunder and robbery of the Spanish vessel therein mentioned. If the plunder and robbery aforesaid be piracy under the act of the Congress of the United States, entitled, 'An act to protect the commerce of the United States, and punish the crime of piracy,' then we find the said prisoner guilty; if the plunder and robbery above started, be not piracy under the said act of Congress, then we find him not guilty."

The Circuit Court divided on the question whether this be piracy as defined by the law of nations, so as to he punishable under the act of Congress, of the 3d of March, 1819, and thereupon the question was certified to this court for its decision.

Feb. 21st. The Attorney General, for the United States, contended, that Congress, by referring to the law of nations for a definition of the crime of piracy, had duly exercised the power given them by the constitution, 'to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations.' By this reference they adopt the definition of the offence given by the writers on public law. All these writers concur in defining it to be, depredation on the seas, without the authority of a commission, or beyond its authority. If there be any defect of precision or slight uncertainty in the definitions of the crime of piracy given by different writers on the law of nations, it is no more than what is to be found in common law writers on the crime of murder. Yet we are constantly referred by the legislature to the common law for the definition of murder and other felonies which are mentioned in statutory provisions. But there is no defect in the definition of piracy by the authorities to which we are referred by this act. The definition given by them is certain, consistent, and unanimous; and pirates being hostes humani generis, are punishable in the tribunals of all nations. All nations are engaged in a league against them for the mutual defence and safety of all. This renders it the more fit and proper that there should be a uniform rule as to the definition of the crime, which can only be drawn from the law of nations, as the only code universally known and recognized by the people of all countries. Mr. Webster, contra, argued, that the special verdict did not contain sufficient facts to enable the Court to pronounce the prisoner guilty of the offence charged. The facts found, do not necessarily infer his guilt, but, on the contrary, are consistent with his innocence; inasmuch as it appears that he was one of the crew of a vessel belonging to Buenos Ayres, although not acting at the time when the supposed offence was committed under the commission of that colony, but acting as a non-commissioned captor, and as such, seizing the property of Spanish subjects on the high seas. But even supposing the offence to be well found by the special verdict, it cannot be punished under this act, because the law is not a constitutional exercise of the power of Congress to define the crime of piracy. Congress is bound to define it in terms, and is not at liberty to leave it to be ascertained by judicial interpretation. To refer to the law of nations for a definition of the crime, is not a definition; for the very thing to be ascertained by the definition, is the law of nations on the subject. The constitution evidently presupposes that this crime, and other offences committed on the high seas, were not defined with sufficient precisich by the law of nations, or any other law, to form a rule of conduct; or it would merely have given Congress the power of punishing these offences, without also imposing upon it the duty of defining them. The writers on public law do not define the crime of piracy with precision and certainty. It was this very defect which rendered it necessary that Congress should define, in terms, before it proceeded to exercise the power of punishing the offence. Congress must define it as the constitution has defined treason, not by referring to the law of nations in one case, or to the common law in the other, but by giving a distinct, intelligible explanation of the nature of the offence in the act itself. Feb. 25th. Mr. Justice STORY delivered the opinion of the court.

title: United States v. Smith (18 U.S. 153)


text:
The Assessors v. Osbornes

IN this case, which came on error from the Circuit Court for the Northern District of New York, the same condition of enactment and repeal of statutes presented itself as in the last case. It is set forth, supra, pp. 560-562. It makes the fundamental part of this case as of that. And the reader who desires to read the report of this case as well as the report of that, will please to recall it thence, or refer to it there.

In the present case, D. & J. Osborne, manufacturers, brought suit to June Term, 1866, against one Gates, assessor of internal revenue, to recover damages for his having illegally assessed against them taxes upon certain articles manufactured by them. A case was stated for the judgment of the court. In one clause of it, it was agreed that 'the plaintiffs, for several years past, have been manufacturers of reaping and mowing machines at the city of Auburn, and within the 24th collection district of the State of New York;' and in another clause, that 'the defendant, as the assessor of the 24th district, did require of the plaintiffs that they should return, &c., the number of tons,' &c.

In the declaration a similar representation was made as to the citizenship of the parties. It alleged that the plaintiffs bring 'their certain declaration against Joseph Gates, the assessor of internal revenue for the 24th district of the State of New York, which is in and within the said Northern District of New York;' and it thus began: 'And whereas the said D. M. Osborn & Company, so being the exclusive manufacturers, &c., at their said manufacturing establishment in the said city of Auburn, and within the said 24th collection district of the said State.'

The court gave judgment for the plaintiffs, and the government brought the case here on error.

Mr. Hoar, Attorney-General, and Mr. Field, Assistant Attorney-General, for the assessor.

The cases of the Insurance Company v. Ritchie, and of Hornthall v. The Collector, conclude this case, irrespective of merits. Any discussion of these is, therefore, irrelative. The parties were obviously all resident within and all probably citizens of the State of New York, and it was perfectly settled by the first of the cases cited, as it is also affirmed by the second, that in the present state of the statutory law, a Circuit Court of the United States has no jurisdiction of a suit originally brought there for an alleged illegal assessment of internal revenue taxes collected or paid, unless the citizenship of the parties be such as to give it jurisdiction, and unless, also, this citizenship be averred.

Mr. D. Wright, contra, submitted,

1st. That it did not appear that the case had not been brought originally in a State court and removed into the Circuit Court, as required by the statute of July 13th, 1866, to give the Circuit Court jurisdiction under existing laws.

2d. That it did not appear that the plaintiff and defendant were not citizens of different States, as required to confer jurisdiction upon the Circuit Court.

3d. That if the case was properly cognizable in the Circuit Court at the time it was commenced, the subsequent repeal of the provision conferring such jurisdiction would not impair the right of the plaintiffs to maintain the suit.

Mr. Justice CLIFFORD stated the particulars of the case, and delivered the opinion of the court.

title: The Assessors v. Osbornes


text: Talk:The Assessors v. Osbornes

title: Talk:The Assessors v. Osbornes


text:
The Assessors v. Osbornes/Opinion of the Court

Damages are sought to be recovered by the plaintiffs of the defendant, as the assessor of internal revenue taxes for the twenty-fourth district in the State of New York, because, as they allege, he illegally assessed against them certain internal revenue taxes upon certain articles which they manufactured during the period specified in the declaration.

They brought their suit on the twentieth of July, 1866, and the declaration contains forty-one counts. Twenty-eight of the counts relate to certain internal revenue taxes alleged to have been illegally assessed by the defendant against the plaintiffs upon certain iron castings of two classes therein described. One class consisted of castings of iron exceeding ten pounds in weight for each casting, and the other class consisted of castings of iron of ten pounds weight for each casting, or less, as more fully set forth in the first fourteen counts.

Machines, in a finished condition, for reaping and mowing, were also manufactured by the plaintiffs during the same period, and the remaining thirteen counts relate to assessments made by the defendant against the plaintiffs upon reaping and mowing machines which were in a finished condition; and the charge is, that the last-named assessments were also illegal, and that the defendant, as such assessor, transmitted the lists to the collector of the district, and that the plaintiffs paid the taxes under protest, as in the case of the assessments upon the castings of iron, which were in fact used as component parts of the finished machines.

For several years prior to the assessment of the taxes in question the plaintiffs had been manufacturers of the Kiby Harvester and Mower, at Auburn, within that collection district. They were the exclusive licensees for the manufacture and sale of those machines under the several patents granted for that invention, and the agreed statement shows that they make the castings used as parts of the machines as well as the machines in their organized and finished condition, and it is admitted that the castings which they make cannot be used for any other purpose than as component parts of their machine, nor as parts of any different machine made by any other manufacturers.

Castings manufactured by the plaintiffs are made from pigiron, upon which the internal revenue duties imposed under the acts of Congress have been fully paid. All of the castings, after being taken from the moulds, require to be polished, examined, and tested, to see if they are perfect and fit for the purpose before they can be used as component parts of a reaper or mower, and many of them have also to be painted and varnished.

Reapers and mowers, when sold by the plaintiffs, include as parts thereof all the necessary pieces of castings and of woodwork to constitute a complete working machine; but they do not put all of the several parts together until the purchaser is ready to use the machine in the field, as it is much more convenient to transport the several parts in their separate condition than the embodied machine.

Prior to the year 1865 the plaintiffs had never made any returns to the assessor or assistant assessor of any castings which they manufactured, nor had they ever been required to make any such return, either by the assessor, assistant assessor, or commissioner; but the commissioner, in March of that year, directed the defendant, as such assessor, to require of the plaintiffs such a return, specifying the number of tons of such castings which they had manufactured, of the two classes mentioned in the declaration, for the six months next preceding the month of March of that year, and also the number of finished machines which they had manufactured and sold during the same time, in order that the same might be separately taxed, as follows: (1.) That the castings of ten pounds weight or less each casting might be taxed at the rate of five per cent. ad valorem. (2.) That the castings exceeding ten pounds in weight each casting might be taxed at the rate of three dollars per ton. (3.) That the finished machines sold during that time might be taxed five per cent. ad valorem, without any deduction being made for the castings used as component parts of the machines.

Pursuant to the directions of the commissioner the plaintiffs made the required return, and paid the taxes to the collector, under protest, and brought this suit to recover compensation for the illegal acts of the defendant. Process having been served, the defendant appeared and pleaded that he was not guilty, which was duly joined by the plaintiff, and the parties entered into stipulation waiving a jury, and consenting that the cause might be tried by the court without the intervention of a jury.

Hearing was accordingly had before the court and judgment was rendered for the plaintiffs in the sum of nine thousand eight hundred and five dollars and twelve cents, besides costs and charges. Whereupon the defendant sued out a writ of error and removed the cause into this court.

Besides the first assessment, which included the month of July, 1864, and extended to February, 1865, both inclusive, there were subsequent assessments for each month following, up to and including May, 1866, and the agreed statement finds that the same state of facts apply to every month thereafter until the passage of the act of the thirteenth of July, 1866, which transferred reapers and mowers to the free list.

Where internal revenue taxes are illegally assessed it is well settled that the injured party, if he complies with the conditions specified in the act of Congress upon that subject, and pays the taxes under protest, may maintain an action of assumpsit against the collector to recover back the amount so paid.

Collectors in such cases are not required to reimburse themselves for such liabilities, but the provision is, that all such judgments against them shall be paid by the commissioner, including the costs and expenses of the suit. Such a judgment against the collector is in the nature of a recovery against the United States, and consequently the amount recovered is regarded as a proper charge against the revenue collected from that source. Grant all that and still the concession does not touch the question involved in this case, as the suit in the case before the court is against the assessor to recover back taxes paid to the collector, which presents a question never adjudicated in this court. Assessors may, perhaps, be liable for an illegal assessment in cases where they have no jurisdiction to make any assessment, but the question whether an assessor is liable to an action of assumpsit for taxes paid to a collector is a very different question, and it is quite certain that such a theory finds no support in any prior decision of this court.

Actions of the kind may, under some circumstances, undoubtedly be maintained against the collector, and it may be that an assessor, acting in a case where he has no jurisdiction, may be liable to the injured party for an illegal assessment of internal revenue taxes, but neither the collector nor the assessor can be sued in the Circuit Court of the United States by any party who is a citizen of the same State with such collector or assessor. Suits in such cases, that is, where the plaintiff and defendant are citizens of the same State, may be brought in the State courts, but such suits cannot be maintained in the Circuit Courts under existing laws unless the plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different States. Consequently, where the parties are citizens of the same State, the action must be brought in the State court, but the defendant, if he sees fit and seasonably takes the proper steps, may remove the cause into the Circuit Court for trial.

Cases arising under the revenue laws were declared to be cognizable in the Circuit Courts by the act of the second of March, 1833, unless where it appeared that other provisions for the trial of the same had been previously made by law. Laws for the assessment and collection of internal revenue duties were not in existence at that time, but those provisions were extended by the fiftieth section of the act of the thirtieth of June, 1864, to cases arising under the acts of Congress providing for the collection of internal revenue duties, and the same section provides that all persons authorized to assess, receive, or collect such duties or taxes under those laws shall be entitled to all exemptions, immunities, benefits, rights, and privileges therein enumerated or conferred.

Such an action, to recover back internal revenue duties, illegally assessed, and paid under protest, might undoubtedly have been maintained in the Circuit Courts while that provision remained in force, although both parties were citizens of the same State, as the jurisdiction was made to depend upon the subject-matter, but the first proviso in the sixty-seventh section of the act of the thirtieth of July, 1866, expressly enacts that the original act, to wit, the act of the second of March, 1833, shall not be so construed as to apply to cases 'arising under any of the internal revenue acts, nor to any case in which the validity or interpretation of those acts shall be in issue.'

Unquestionably the effect of that proviso was to confine the original act to the purposes for which it was passed, and to limit its scope and operation, standing alone and unaffected by the fiftieth section of the subsequent act, to cases arising under the acts of Congress providing for the collection of import duties. But that proviso left the fiftieth section of the act of the thirtieth of June, 1864, untouched and in full force, and if legislation had stopped there, persons duly authorized to assess, receive, or collect internal revenue duties would still have been entitled to the same exemptions, immunities, benefits, rights, and privileges under the original act as persons employed to assess, receive, or collect import duties. Legislation, however, did not stop there, but the sixty-eighth section of the act of the thirteenth of July, 1866, repealed the fiftieth section of the act of the thirtieth of June, 1864, altogether, subject to the proviso contained in the same repealing section, which enacts that any case removed, from a State court, into the Circuit Court, under the former regulations upon the subject, shall be remanded, unless the justice of the Circuit Court shall be of the opinion that the same, if pending in the State court, might be removed into the Circuit Court under the new provision contained in the sixty-seventh section of that act.

Since the passage of that act and the repeal of the fiftieth section of the prior act, the Circuit Courts have no jurisdiction of cases arising under the internal revenue laws to recover back duties illegally assessed and paid under protest, unless the plaintiff and defendant therein are citizens of different States. Such actions must be commenced in the State courts if the parties are citizens of the same State, but the defendant may, at any time before the trial, upon petition to the Circuit Court of the district in which he is served with process, remove the cause, upon due proceedings therein, into such Circuit Court, and the provision is that the cause thereafter shall be heard and determined as a cause originally commenced in that court.

Assumpsit for money had and received is the appropriate remedy to recover back moneys paid under protest for internal revenue duties illegally assessed; and, if commenced in a State court, the action may be removed, on petition of the defendant, into the Circuit Court for the district where the service was made, and in that state of the case the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court is clear beyond doubt, irrespective of the citizenship of the parties, but if the action is originally commenced in the Circuit Court the cause must be dismissed for the want of jurisdiction, unless is appears that the parties were citizens of different States.

Three propositions are submitted by the plaintiffs as being severally sufficient to take the case before the court out of the operation of that rule: (1.) They contend that it does not appear that the case was not removed from the State court into the Circuit Court, as required to give the Circuit Court jurisdiction under existing laws. (2.) That it does not appear that the plaintiff and defendant in the case are not citizens of different States, as required to confer jurisdiction upon the Circuit Court. (3.) That the case was properly cognizable in the Circuit Court at the time it was commenced, and that the subsequent repeal of the provision conferring such jurisdiction does not impair the right of the plaintiffs to maintain the suit.

Unsupported in fact as the first proposition is, it does not seem to be necessary to enter into any argument to refute it. Suffice it to say, that the record shows that the suit was commenced in the Circuit Court, and that it was not removed into that court from the State court, which is all that need be said in reply to the first proposition.

When the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court depends upon the citizenship of the parties it is not enough that it does appear that they are not citizens of the same State, but the facts necessary to give the Circuit Court jurisdiction must be distinetly alleged. Circuit Courts are courts of special jurisdiction, and therefore they cannot take jurisdiction of any case, either civil or criminal, where they are not authorized to do so by an act of Congress.

Jurisdiction in such cases was conferred by an act of Congress, and when that act of Congress was repealed the power to exercise such jurisdiction was withdrawn, and inasmuch as the repealing act contained no saving clause, all pending actions fell, as the jurisdiction depended entirely upon the act of Congress.

Applying these principles to the present case it is clear that the Circuit Court has no jurisdiction of this case. Usually where a court has no jurisdiction of the case the correct practice is to dismiss the suit, but a different rule necessarily prevails in an appellate court in cases where the subordinate court was without jurisdiction and has improperly given judgment for the plaintiff. In such a case the judgment in the court below must be reversed, else the plaintiff would have the benefit of a judgment rendered by a court which had no authority to hear and determine the matter in controversy.

JUDGMENT REVERSED, and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss the case

FOR THE WANT OF JURISDICTION.


text: Talk:The Assessors v. Osbornes/Opinion of the Court


text: Talk:United States v. Smith (18 U.S. 153)


text:
Litchfield v. The Register and Receiver

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for the District of Iowa.

Litchfield field his bill in the court below against Richards, Register, and Pomeroy, Receiver of the United States Land Office at Fort Dodge, Iowa, asking an injunction to restrain them from entertaining and acting upon applications made to them to prove pre-emptions to certain lands which lay within the land district for which they were respectively register and receiver. The bill, which was very full, recited the various acts of Congress and of the State of Iowa, by which the complainant maintained that a large list of tracts of land, supposed to belong to an original grant to the Territory of Iowa for the purpose of improving the navigation of the Des Moines River, became his property. The history of that grant has been recently the subject of report in these volumes in several cases, and it is unnecessary to repeat it. It is sufficient to say that the bill giving that version of the matter which was favorable to the title of the complainant, averred that he was the legal owner of the lands; that they were not public lands, and were in no manner subject to sale or pre-emption by the government, or its officers. The defendant demurred, and the bill was dismissed for want of equitable jurisdiction. Whereupon the complainant appealed.

Mr. Litchfield, the complainant, insisted that the facts as stated in the bill must be taken as confessed by the demurrer, and that they showed that the land officers were exceeding their authority, and would give certificates of pre-emption and entry, which would cloud and embarrass his title, and that they should, therefore, be restrained.

Mr. Kelsey, contra.

Mr. Justice MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Litchfield v. The Register and Receiver


text: Talk:Litchfield v. The Register and Receiver


text:
Litchfield v. The Register and Receiver/Opinion of the Court

The principle has been so repeatedly decided in this court, that the judiciary cannot interfere either by mandamus or injunction with executive officers such as the respondents here, in the discharge of their official duties, unless those duties are of a character purely ministerial, and involving no exercise of judgment or discretion, that it would seem to be useless to repeat it here. In the case of Gaines v. Thompson, decided at the last term of this court, the whole subject was fully considered, and the cases in this court examined. The doctrine just stated was announced as the result of that examination. The case of The Secretary v. McGarrahan, of the present term, reaffirms the principle, which must now be considered as settled. Both these cases had reference to efforts similar to the present, to control the officers of the land department.

It is insisted, however, by the complainant, that the present case does not come within the rule so laid down, and his argument is plausible. A title consideration, however, will show that it is unsound.

The lands in controversy are situated within the land district over which these officers have authority to receive proof of pre-emption, and grant certificate of entry. There are within that district, of course, lands open to sale and preemption. There would be no use for the land office if there were not. The very first duty which the register is called on to perform, when an application is made to him to enter a tract of land, is to ascertain whether it is subject to entry. This depends upon a variety of circumstances. Has there been a proclamation offering it for sale? Has it been reserved by any action of Congress, or of the proper department? Has it been granted by any act of Congress, or has it been sold already? These are all questions for him to decide, and they require the exercise of judgment and discretion. The bill shows on its face that these officers, in the exercise of this duty, were considering whether the reservations of the departments and the acts of Congress, and the claim of the plaintiff under them, took these lands out of the category of lands subject to sale and pre-emption, and he asks the court to interfere by injunction to prevent them from determining that question, and that the court shall determine it for them. He says the court below erred because it did not require them to come in and answer to his claim of title, and at their own expense to put the court in possession of their views, and defend their instructions from the commissioner, and convert the contest before the land department into one before the court. This is precisely what this court has decided that no court shall do. After the land officers shall have disposed of the question, if any legal right of plaintiff has been invaded, he may seek redress in the courts. He insists that he now has the legal title. If the land department finally decides in his favor, he is not injured. If they give patents to the applicants for pre-emption, the courts can then in the appropriate proceeding determine who has the better title or right. To interfere now, is to take from the officers of the land department the functions which the law confides to them and exercise them by the court.

Another objection, equally fatal to the bill, is the want of necessary parties.

It appears on its face, that the register and receiver have no real interest in the matter, but that persons not named are asserting before them the legal right to pre-empt these lands. These persons are the real parties whose interests are to be affected, and whose claim of right is adverse to plaintiff. If the court should hear the case, and enjoin perpetually the register and receiver from entertaining their applications, they have no further remedy. That is the initial point of establishing their right, and in this mode a valuable and recognized right may be wholly defeated and destroyed, without the possibility of a hearing on the part of the party interested. This is not a case in which the land officers represent these claimants. They have no such duty to perform. They might let the injunction be issued without defence, and thus a proceeding almost ex parte be made to strangle the incipient right of the actual settler on the public lands. If it can be done in this case, it can be done in every other in which a plaintiff is willing to proceed against the officers, without bringing the settler on the land before the court.

DECREE AFFIRMED.


text: Talk:Litchfield v. The Register and Receiver/Opinion of the Court


text:
United States v. Smith (18 U.S. 153)/Opinion of the Court

The act of Congress upon which this indictment is founded provides, 'that if any person or persons whatsoever, shall, upon the high seas, commit the crime of piracy, as defined by the law of nations, and such offender or offenders shall be brought into, or found in the United States, every such offender or offenders shall, upon conviction thereof, &c. be punished with death.' The first point made at the bar is, whether this enactment be a constitutional exercise of the authority delegated to Congress upon the subject of piracies. The constitution declares, that Congress shall have power 'to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations.' The argument which has been urged in behalf of the prisoner is, that Congress is bound to define, in terms, the offence of piracy, and is not at liberty to leave it to be ascertained by judicial interpretation. If the argument be well founded, it seems admitted by the counsel that it equally applies to the 8th section of the act of Congress of 1790, ch. 9. which declares, that robbery and murder committed on the high seas shall be deemed piracy; and yet, notwithstanding a series of contested adjudications on this section, no doubt has hitherto been breathed of its conformity to the constitution.

In our judgment, the construction contended for proceeds upon too narrow a view of the language of the constitution. The power given to Congress is not merely 'to define and punish piracies;' if it were, the words 'to define,' would seem almost superfluous, since the power to punish piracies would be held to include the power of ascertaining and fixing the definition of the crime. And it has been very justly observed, in a celebrated commentary, that the definition of piracies might have been left without inconvenience to the law of nations, though a legislative definition of them is to be found in most municipal codes. But the power is also given 'to define and punish felonies on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations.' The term 'felonies,' has been supposed in the same work, not to have a very exact and determinate meaning in relation to offences at the common law committed within the body of a county. However this may be, in relation to offences on the high seas, it is necessarily somewhat indeterminate, since the term is not used in the criminal jurisprudence of the admiralty in the technical sense of the common law. Offences, too, against the law of nations, cannot, with any accuracy, be said to be completely ascertained and defined in any public code recognised by the common consent of nations. In respect, therefore, as well to felonies on the high seas as to offences against the law of nations, there is a peculiar fitness in giving the power to define as well as to punish; and there is not the slightest reason to doubt that this consideration had very great weight in producing the phraseology in question.

But supposing Congress were bound in all the cases included in the clause under consideration to define the offence, still there is nothing which restricts it to a mere logical enumeration in detail of all the facts constituting the offence. Congress may as well define by using a term of a known and determinate meaning, as by an express enumeration of all the particulars included in that term. That is certain which is by necessary reference made certain. When the act of 1790 declares, that any person who shall commit the crime of robbery, or murder, on the high seas, shall be deemed a pirate, the crime is not less clearly ascertained than it would be by using the definitions of these terms as they are found in our treatises of the common law. In fact, by such a reference, the definitions are necessarily included, as much as if they stood in the text of the act. In respect to murder, where 'malice aforethought' is of the essence of the offence, even if the common law definition were quoted in express terms, we should still be driven to deny that the definition was perfect, since the meaning of 'malice aforethought' would remain to be gathered from the common law. There would then be no end to our difficulties, or our definitions, for each would involve some terms which might still require some new explanation. Such a construction of the constitution is, therefore, wholly inadmissible. To define piracies, in the sense of the constitution, is merely to enumerate the crimes which shall constitute piracy; and this may be done either by a reference to crimes having a technical name, and determinate extent, or by enumerating the acts in detail, upon which the punishment is inflicted.

It is next to be considered, whether the crime of piracy is defined by the law of nations with reasonable certainty. What the law of nations on this subject is, may be ascertained by consulting the works of jurists, writing professedly on public law; or by the general usage and practice of nations; or by judicial decisions recognising and enforcing that law. There is scarcely a writer on the law of nations, who does not allude to piracy as a crime of a settled and determinate nature; and whatever may be the diversity of definitions, in other respects, all writers concur, in holding, that robbery, or forcible depredations' upon the sea, animo furandi, is piracy. The same doctrine is held by all the great writers on maritime law, in terms that admit of no reasonable doubt. The common law, too, recognises and punishes piracy as an offence, not against its own municipal code, but as an offence against the law of nations, (which is part of the common law,) as an offence against the universal law of society, a pirate being deemed an enemy of the human race. Indeed, until the statute of 28th of Henry VIII. ch. 15. piracy was punishable in England only in the admiralty as a civil law offence; and that statute, in changing the jurisdiction, has been universally admitted not to have changed the nature of the offence. Sir Charles Hedges, in his charge at the Admiralty sessions, in the case of Rex v. Dawson, (5 State Trials,) declared in emphatic terms, that 'piracy is only a sea term for robbery, piracy being a robbery committed within the jurisdiction of the admiralty.' Sir Leoline Jenkins, too, on a like occasion, declared that 'a robbery, when committed upon the sea, is what we call piracy;' and he cited the civil law writers, in proof. And it is manifest from the language of Sir William Blackstone, in his comments on piracy, that he considered the common law definition as distinguishable in no essential respect from that of the law of nations. So that, whether we advert to writers on the common law, or the maritimo law, or the law of nations, we shall find that they universally treat of piracy as an offence against the law of nations, and that its true definition by that law is robbery upon the sea. And the general practice of all nations in punishing all persons, whether natives or foreigners, who have committed this offence against any persons whatsoever, with whom they are in amity, is a conclusive proof that the offence is supposed to depend, not upon the particular provisions of any municipal code, but upon the law of nations, both for its definition and punishment. We have, therefore, no hesitation in declaring, that piracy, by the law of nations, is robbery upon the sea, and that it is sufficiently and constitutionally defined by the fifth section of the act of 1819.

Another point has been made in this case, which is, that the special verdict does not contain sufficient facts upon which the Court can pronounce that the prisoner is guilty of piracy. We are of a different opinion. The special verdict finds that the prisoner is guilty of the plunder and robbery charged in the indictment; and finds certain additional facts from which it is most manifest that he and his associates were, at the time of committing the offence, freebooters upon the sea, not under the acknowledged authority, or deriving protection from the flag or commission of any government. If, under such circumstances, the offence be not piracy, it is difficult to conceive any which would more completely fit the definition.

It is to be certified to the Circuit Court, that upon the facts stated, the case is piracy, as defined by the law of nations, so as to be punishable under the act of Congress of the 3d of March, 1819.

Mr. Justice LIVINGSTON dissented.

CERTIFICATE. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record of the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Virginia, and on the question on which the Judges of that Court were divided in opinion, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, this Court is of opinion, that the offence charged in the indictment in this case, and found by the jury to have been committed by the prisoner, amounts to the crime of piracy, as defined by the law of nations, so as to be punishable under the act of Congress, entitled, 'an act to protect the commerce of the United States, and punish the crime of piracy.' All which is ordered to be certified to the Circuit Court for the district of Virginia.