text:
Ex Parte Reed/Opinion of the Court

MR. GEORGE S. BOUTWELL presented the following petition of Alvin R. Reed for a writ of habeas corpus:--

'To the Supreme Court of the United States:

'The petition of Alvin R. Reed, of Medford, in the county of Middlesex and State of Massachusetts, respectfully shows,--

'First, That on or about the twenty-sixth day of June, A.D. 1878, your petitioner was ordered to appear before a naval general court-martial convened by Rear-Admiral Ed. T. Nichols, on board the U.S. ship 'Essex,' then stationed in the waters of Rio Janeiro, South America, to answer to certain charges and specifications of malfeasance in the discharge of his official duties as clerk to George L. Davis, then a paymaster in the navy of the United States.

'Secondly, That in obedience to said order your petitioner appeared before said court-martial, and on the fifth day of July, A.D. 1878, pleaded not guilty to the several charges and specifications then made and read to him; and that thereupon, from day to day, the trial proceeded until the sixteenth day of July, A.D. 1878, when the said court-martial found him guilty of certain of the charges and specifications.

'Thirdly, That on the said sixteenth day of July, A.D. 1878, the court passed sentence upon your petitioner, made a record thereof in their proceedings, and transmitted the sentence to Rear-Admiral Nichols after the members of the court had affixed their signatures thereto.

'Fourthly, That on the nineteenth day of July, A.D. 1878, Rear-Admiral Nichols returned the said sentence to the president of the court-martial, with a communication in writing, in which the admiral says that the finding is in accordance with the evidence, but regrets to be compelled to differ with the court as to the adequacy of the sentence.

'Fifthly, That on the twentieth day of July, A.D. 1878, the court-martial proceeded to revise the sentence so returned, and adopted an order that the following sentence be placed on the record in substitution of the former sentence, which is hereby revoked:--

"That the said Alvin R. Reed, paymaster's clerk, U.S. Navy, be imprisoned in such place as the honorable Secretary of the Navy may designate for the term of two years; to lose all pay which may become due him during such confinement, excepting the sum of $10 per month, this loss amounting to $1,960; to be fined in the sum of $500, which fine must be paid before or at the end of the term of confinement. Should such fine not be paid at end of term of confinement, to be detained in confinement without pay until such fine be paid, and at the expiration of term of confinement to be dishonorably dismissed from the naval service of the United States.

"W. S. SCHLEY, Commander U.S. N., President of Court.

H. T. STANCLIFF, Past Assistant Paymaster and member.

'CHAS. H. BLACK, Lieutenant and member.

E. S. HOUSTON, Lieutenant and member.

ASA WALKER, Lieutenant and member.

W. P. DAY, Lieutenant and member.

ROBERT L. MEAD, Captain U.S. M. C., Judge Advocate.'

'Sixthly, That the second sentence, so imposed, was more severe upon your petitioner than the sentence passed upon him on the sixteenth day of July, A.D. 1878, and revoked by the court-martial as aforesaid.

'Seventhly, And your petitioner further represents, that in his capacity as paymaster's clerk, as aforesaid, he was not amenable to trial by court-martial, nor subject to the jurisdiction of said court.

'Eighthly, That under said second sentence your petitioner has been for a long time, and now is confined on the U.S. ship 'Wabash,' at the navy yard, Boston, Mass., and under the custody of Capt. S. L. Breese, commander of said ship.

'Ninthly, That on or about the twelfth day of April, A.D. 1879, your petitioner presented his petition to the Hon. John Lowell, Circuit Judge of the United States in the first circuit, praying for a writ of habeas corpus; that a hearing thereupon was had before the Hon. Thomas L. Nelson, Judge of the District Court, sitting in the said Circuit Court, and such proceedings were thereon had that on the twelfth day of June, A.D. 1879, the said Circuit Court, to which said writ was returnable, remanded your petitioner and discharged said writ.

'And your petitioner now is, and ever since the said twelfth day of June, A.D. 1879, has been, a prisoner confined on said ship, at the navy yard, at said Boston, in the custody of said S. L. Breese, under the said illegal sentence pronounced on him on the said twentieth day of July, A.D. 1878, and restrained of his liberty in violation of the Constitution of the United States and of the laws of the country.

'Wherefore your petitioner prays that a writ of habeas corpus issue directed to the said S. L. Breese, commander of the said ship 'Wabash,' commanding him to produce your petitioner before this honorable court, at the city of Washington, at such time as the court shall direct, and that he then and there show the cause of your petitioner's detention, to the end that your petitioner may be discharged from custody.

'And your petitioner also prays that a writ of certiorari may issue to John G. Stetson, clerk of the U.S.C.ircuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, commanding him to certify to your honorable court the petition of your petitioner before referred to, the return thereto, and all the records of said court respecting the same, and the adjudication thereon, to the end that the errors therein may be corrected by this honorable court.

'And your petitioner will ever pray.

'ALVIN R. REED.

'Dated BOSTON, Sept. 3, 1879.'The petition was duly verified, and the facts therein stated were set forth with more fulness and particularity in an agreed statement filed therewith.

Mr. George S. Boutwell for the petitioner.

The prisoner is now held by order of the Circuit Court, whereby he was remanded into the custody of Captain Breese, and this proceeding is in the nature of an appeal, in which is included the power of revision in the exercise by this court of its appellate jurisdiction. Ex parte Yerger, 8 Wall. 85; Ex parte Vallandigham, 1 id. 243.

Courts-martial are exceptional in their organization, jurisdiction, modes of procedure, and the rules by which findings are made or judgments pronounced. In an ordinary judicial tribunal, nothing, therefore, is to be presumed in their favor. Brooks v. Adams, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 442; Dynes v. Hoover, 20 How. 65.

Paymasters' clerks are only recognized indirectly in the chapter on the organization of the navy. By sects. 1386, 1387, 1388, Rev. Stat., paymasters and assistant paymasters are, under certain circumstances, allowed clerks. By sect. 1556 their pay is fixed. For the same reason, by sect. 1367, the admiral and vice-admiral are each allowed a secretary to aid in the discharge of their respective duties. Sect. 1366 provides that 'the active list of the pay corps of the navy shall consist of thirteen pay directors, thirteen pay inspectors, fifty paymasters, thirty passed assistant paymasters, and twenty assistant paymasters.' Sect. 1383 requires every paymaster, passed assistant paymaster, and assistant paymaster to give bonds for the faithful performance of his duties. No such obligation is laid upon paymasters' clerks, nor are they officers holding either commissions or warrants, nor are they deemed petty officers. Sect. 1410.

If a reasonable doubt exists whether paymasters' clerks are of the naval force and subject to the jurisdiction of a court-martial, the petitioner is entitled to the writ.

1. There is no common law of the United States. Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591. As the existence, jurisdiction, and powers of courts-martial are exceptional, with stronger reason it can be maintained that such courts have no common law, and hence any reference to the usages or laws of Great Britain is inapplicable to this case. In one particular, by the statute of 1799 (1 Stat. 715), the common law of nations, which was the law of Great Britain, was incorporated in our naval code. The statute was in these words: 'All faults, disorders, and misdemeanors which shall be committed on board any ship belonging to the United States, and which are not herein mentioned, shall be punished according to the laws and customs in such cases at sea.' It was superseded by art. 22, sect. 1624, Rev. Stat., which provides that 'all offences ommitted by persons belonging to the navy which are not specified in the foregoing articles shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.'

The adoption, however, of one common-law rule by statute excludes the idea that, by virtue of the Constitution, the naval usages and laws of Great Britain became a part of our naval code.

As Reed was tried upon the charge of malfeasance and misdemeanors prohibited specifically in the rules and articles for the government of the navy, his case did not fall under art. 22.

2. Sect. 1624, Rev. Stat., provides a system for the organization and conduct of naval courts-martial, and their proceedings are valid only when the statutes are followed and obeyed.

3. As the case of the government is now understood by the counsel for the petitioner, the act of Rear-Admiral Nichols, in sending the sentence of the 17th of July to the court for revision, is justified under art. 54 of sect. 1624 of the Revised Statutes, which declares that 'every officer who is authorized to convene a court-martial shall have power, on revision of its proceedings, to remit or mitigate, but not to commute, the sentence of any such court which he is authorized to approve and confirm;' and by sect. 262 of the rules and regulations for the administration of law and justice in the navy, as authorized or confirmed by sect. 1547 of the Revised Statutes, which provides that 'the authority who ordered the court is competent to direct it to reconsider its proceedings and sentence, for the purpose of correcting any mistake which may have been committed.' Regulations for the Administration of Law and Justice in the U.S. Navy, 1870, p. 49. Sect. 1547, Rev. Stat., is as follows: 'The orders, regulations, and instructions issued by the Secretary of the Navy prior to July 14, 1862, with such alterations as he may since have adopted, with the approval of the President, shall be recognized as the regulations of the navy, subject to alterations adopted in the same manner.'

Sect. 5 of the statute of July 14, 1862 (12 Stat. 565), provides 'that the orders, regulations, and instructions heretofore issued by the Secretary of the Navy be, and they are hereby, recognized as the regulations of the Navy Department, subject, however, to such alterations as the Secretary of the Navy may adopt, with the approbation of the President of the United States.'

The position of the government is not tenable, and for these reasons:--

a. If the regulation of the department had, in precise words, been enacted in a statute, Rear-Admiral Nichols would have had no lawful authority for doing what was done.

He could then have directed the court to reconsider its sentence only for the purpose of correcting a mistake in matter of law or in matter of fact. What he alleged as having happened in the court was neither, being only, in his opinion, an error of judgment within the limits of the discretion conferred by law upon courts-martial.

b. But if it were otherwise, and the regulation of the department be construed as giving him authority to direct the court to reconsider its sentence for any reason that seemed to him sufficient, that regulation would be valid only so far as it conformed to the Constitution and laws. If in any respect it exceeded the limits which they impose, it would not bind even the officers and men of the navy, and with stronger reason it could not be invoked to deprive a citizen of his right to be tried according to the laws of the country.

Art. 54 of sect. 1624, Rev. Stat., specifically limits the authority which the officer convening a court-martial has to revise its proceedings. He may confirm, remit, or mitigate the sentence, but cannot increase it either directly or indirectly, or even transmit it to any one except his superior in office.

c. The sole power of revision was in the admiral himself, and the manner of its exercise was prescribed in that article. When the sentence was signed and transmitted, the power of the court over it ended; and neither by any original action on its own part, nor by delegation from another, could that power be revived.

It is claimed on behalf of the petitioner that when, on the 17th of July, the sentence was made, signed by the several members of the court, recorded, and transmitted to the admiral, not only were the powers of the court exhausted, but the court itself ceased to exist. His action was equivalent to a formal dissolution of the court, and the members who had composed it were thereafter utterly incapable of lawfully doing any act or thing touching or affecting the rights or the liberty of Reed. It follows that on the 22d of July, 1878, when the so-called sentence, whose validity is now under consideration, was pronounced and recorded, a legally constituted court-martial for his trial did not exist. He has therefore been twice put in peril for the same offence, or he is now deprived of his liberty without due process of law. In either case, his imprisonment is contrary to the guaranty contained in art. 5 of the amendments to the Constitution. Osborn v. Nicholson, 13 Wall. 654, 662.

The Attorney-General, contra.

MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE delivered the opinion of the court.

There is no controversy in this case about the facts. The questions we are called on to consider are all questions of law. A brief summary of the facts will therefore be sufficient.

The petitioner, Reed, was the clerk of a paymaster in the navy of the United States. He was duly appointed, and had accepted by a letter, wherein, as required, he bound himself 'to be subject to the laws and regulations for the government of the navy and the discipline of the vessel.' His name was placed on the proper muster-roll, and he entered upon the discharge of his duties. While serving in this capacity, charges of malfeasance were preferred against him, and on the 26th of June, 1878, he was directed by Rear-Admiral Nichols to appear and answer before a general court-martial, convened pursuant to the order of that officer on board the United States ship 'Essex,' then stationed at Rio Janeiro, in Brazil. The court found the petitioner guilty, and sentenced him accordingly. The admiral declined to approve the sentence, and remitted the proceedings back to the court, that the sentence might be revised. The court thereupon pronounced the following sentence in substitution for the former one:--

'That the said Alvin R. Reed, paymaster's clerk, U.S. Navy, be imprisoned in such place as the honorable Secretary of the Navy may designate, for the term of two years; to lose all pay which may become due him during such confinement, excepting the sum of $10 per month, this loss amounting to $1,960; to be fined in the sum of $500, which fine must be paid before or at the end of the term of confinement. Should such fine not be paid at end of the term of confinement, to be detained in confinement without pay until such fine be paid, and at the expiration of the terms of confinement to be dishonorably dismissed from the naval service of the United States.'

This sentence was different from the preceding one in two particulars, and in both it was more severe. It was approved by the admiral, and ordered to be carried out. The court was subsequently dissolved. While in confinement, under the sentence, on board a naval vessel at Boston, the petitioner sued out a writ of habeas corpus, and brought his case before the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts. After a full hearing, that court adjudged against him, and ordered him back into the custody of the naval officer to whom the writ was addressed. The petitioner thereupon made this application in order that the conclusions reached by the Circuit Court may be reviewed by this tribunal.

It is supposed that courts-martial were intended originally to be a partial substitute for the court of chivalry of former times. 3 Christian's Bl. 68, 108; Bouv. Law Dict., tit. Courts-martial. The difference between military law and martial law is too well known to require any remark. 1 Kent, Com. (12th ed.) 241, note (a).

'. . . The common law. . . knew no distinction between citizen and soldier; so that if a life-guardsman deserted, he could only be sued for a breach of contract; and if he struck his officer, he was only liable to an indictment or an action of battery.' 3 Campbell's Lives of Chief Justices, 91.

The constitutionality of the acts of Congress touching army and navy courts-martial in this country, if there could ever have been a doubt about it, is no longer an open question in this court. Const., art. 1, sect. 8, and amendment 5. In Dynes v. Hoover (20 How. 65), the subject was fully considered and their validity affirmed.

The regularity of the original organization of the court here in question is not denied.

Three points in support of the petition have been brought to our attention. It is insisted—

1. That the court had no jurisdiction to try a paymaster's clerk.

2. That when the first sentence was pronounced, the power of the court was exhausted, and that the second sentence was, therefore, a nullity.

3. That the court could revise its former sentence only on the ground of mistake, and that there was no mistake, and consequently no power of revision.

The first of these propositions is clearly not maintainable.

Where the punishment is death, or fine and imprisonment, the jurisdiction in question is extended to all persons 'in the naval service of the United States' (Rev. Stat., sect. 1624, arts. 4, 14); and it embraces, besides the frauds enumerated, 'any other fraud against the United States.' Id., art. 14.

In case of conviction, adequate punishment is required to be adjudged. Id., art. 51.

Except where the sentence is death or the dismissal of a commissioned or warrant officer, it may be executed when confirmed by the officer ordering the court. Id., art. 53.

The place of paymaster's clerk is an important one in the machinery of the navy. Their appointment must be approved by the commander of the ship. Their acceptance and agreement to submit to the laws and regulations for the government and discipline of the navy must be in writing, and filed in the department. They must take an oath, and bind themselves to serve until discharged. The discharge must be by the appointing power, and approved in the same manner as the appointment. They are required to wear the uniform of the service; they have a fixed rank; they are upon the payroll, and are paid accordingly. They may also become entitled to a pension and to bounty land. Navy Regulations of Aug. 7, 1876, p. 95; In re Bogart, 2 Sawyer, 396; United States v. Bogart, 3 Benedict, 257; Rev. Stat., sects. 4695 and 2426.

The good order and efficiency of the service depend largely upon the faithful performance of their duties.

If these officers are not in the naval service, it may well be asked who are.

The second and third points will be considered together.

The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to establish 'Regulations of the Navy,' with the approval of the President. 12 Stat. 565; Rev. Stat., sect. 1547. Such 'Regulations for the Administration of Law and Justice' were issued on the 15th of April, 1870. Thereby it is declared as follows:--

'The authority who ordered the court is competent to direct it to reconsider its proceedings and sentence for the purpose of correcting any mistake which may have been committed.

'It is not the power of the revising authority to compel a court to change its sentence, where, upon being reconvened by him, they have refused to modify it, nor directly or indirectly to enlarge the measure of punishment imposed by sentence of a court-martial.

'The proceedings must be sent back for revision before the court shall have been dissolved.' Reg., c. 5, sects. 262-264.

Such regulations have the force of law. Gratiot v. United States, 4 How. 80.

The proceedings with respect to the revision of the second sentence were in conformity to these provisions.

It is clear that the court was not dissolved until after the approval of the second sentence by the admiral.

The court had jurisdiction over the person and the case. It is the organism provided by law and clothed with the duty of administering justice in this class of cases. Having had such jurisdiction, its proceedings cannot be collaterally impeached for any mere error or irregularity, if there were such, committed within the sphere of its authority. Its judgments, when approved as required, rest on the same basis, and are surrounded by the same considerations which give conclusiveness to the judgments of other legal tribunals, including as well the lowest as the highest, under like circumstances. The exercise of discretion, within authorized limits, cannot be assigned for error and made the subject of review by an appeallate court.

We do not overlook the point that there must be jurisdiction to give the judgment rendered, as well as to hear and determine the cause. If a magistrate having authority to fine for assault and battery should sentence the offender to be imprisoned in the penitentiary, or to suffer the punishment prescribed for homicide, his judgment would be as much a nullity as if the preliminary jurisdiction to hear and determine had not existed. Every act of a court beyond its jurisdiction is void. Cornett v. Williams, 20 Wall. 226; Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U.S. 274; 7 Wait's Actions and Defences, 181. Here there was no defect of jurisdiction as to any thing that was done. Beyond this we need not look into the record. Whatever was done, that the court could do under any circumstances, we must presume was properly done. If error was committed in the rightful exercise of authority, we cannot correct it.

A writ of habeas corpus cannot be made to perform the functions of a writ of error. To warrant the discharge of the petitioner, the sentence under which he is held must be, not merely erroneous and voidable, but absolutely void. Ex parte Kearney, 7 Wheat. 38; Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet. 193; Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2.

The application of the petitioner is, therefore, denied.

title: Ex Parte Reed/Opinion of the Court


text: Talk:Ex Parte Reed/Opinion of the Court

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

title: Talk:Ex Parte Reed/Opinion of the Court


text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Richter, Johann Paul Friedrich

RICHTER, Johann Paul Friedrich, generally known as, German author: b. Wunsiedel, near Baireuth, Bavaria, 21 March 1763; d. Baireuth, 14 Nov. 1825. He was educated at Leipzig and became a tutor and schoolmaster. In 1794 he turned from teaching to a general literary activity. The prince-primate Dalberg gave him in 1809 an annual pension of 1,000 florins, continued by the king of Bavaria. The fantastic quality of his genius was at first disconcerting but gradually, says Carlyle, he became considered “not a strange crack-brained mixture of enthusiast and buffoon, but a man of infinite humor, sensibility, force and penetration.” His style is perhaps one of the most barbarous and his books are quite without structure. His humor, however, is genuine, though frequently clumsy. He affected boldly to despise all literary proportion and technique and is recompensed by having the bulk of his work pronounced difiicult or unreadable. Yet scattered through his writings are the best of aphorisms and some of the most finely imagined passages in German literature. These may

serve to account for the interest Carlyle and De Quincy took in him. Outside of Germany he has not been greatly read, though there are various English renderings of his volumes, such as ‘Walt and Vult’ by Lee (1846); ‘Titan’ by Brooks (1863); ‘Flower, Fruit and Thorn Pieces’ by Ewing (1877); and ‘Levana’ by Wood (1887). The first novel, ‘Die unsichtbare Loge’ (‘The Invisible Lodge’) appeared in 1793. It was followed by ‘Hesperus’ (1794); ‘Biographische Belustigungen unter der Gehirnschale einer Riesin’ (‘Biographical Recreations under the Skull of a Giantess,’ 1796); ‘Leben des Quintus Fixlein’ (1796); ‘Blumen, Frucht und Dornenstücke’ (‘Flower, Fruit and Thorn Pieces,’ 1796); ‘Der Jubelsenior’ (‘Parson in Jubilee,’ 1797); ‘Das Kampaner Thal’ (1797); ‘Titan’ (1800); ‘Flegeljahre’ (translated by Carlyle, ‘Wild Oats,’ 1804). The two last are regarded as among his best productions. ‘Das heimliche Klaglied der jetzigen Männer’ appeared in 1801; ‘Dr. Katzenberger's Badereise’ (1809); ‘Des Feldpredigers Schmelzle Reise nach Flätz’ (1809); ‘Leben Fibels’ (1812); ‘Der Komet, oder Nicolaus Markgraf’ (1820-22); ‘Die Vorschule der Aesthetik,’ his first important philosophical work, appeared in 1804, followed by ‘Levana, oder Erziehungslehre’ (1807), a work on education. Further titles are ‘Friedenspredigt’ (1808); ‘Dämmerungen für Deutschland’ (1809); ‘Mars und Phöbus' Thronwechsel im Jahr 1814’ (1814); ‘Politische Fastenpredigten’ (1817 ) . A collection of his works, ‘Sämmtliche werke,’ edited by him before his death, was published in 65 volumes (1826-38). ‘Der Papierdrache,’ his last work, was published in 1845. Consult Spazier, R. O., ‘Jean Paul Friedrich Richter, ein biographisches Commentar zu dessen Werken’ (1833); Carlyle's two essays on Richter; Förster, ‘Denkwürdigkeiten aus dem Leben Richters’ (1863); and Nerrlich, P., ‘Jean Paul und seine Zeitgenossen’ (1889).


text:
Railroad Company v. Fraloff

ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. Elliott F. Shepard for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. James W. Gerard, contra.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Railroad Company v. Fraloff


text: Talk:Railroad Company v. Fraloff

title: Talk:Railroad Company v. Fraloff


text:
Railroad Company v. Fraloff/Opinion of the Court

This is a writ of error to a judgment rendered against the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, in an action by Olga de Maluta Fraloff to recover the value of certain articles of wearing-apparel alleged to have been taken from her trunk while she was a passenger upon the cars of the company, and while the trunk was in its charge for transportation as part of her baggage.

There was evidence before the jury tending to establish the following facts:--

The defendant in error, a subject of the Czar of Russia, possessing large wealth, and enjoying high social position among her own people, after travelling in Europe, Asia, and Africa, spending some time in London and Paris, visited America in the year 1869, for the double purpose of benefiting her health and seeing this country. She brought with her to the United States six trunks of ordinary travel-worn appearance, containing a large quantity of wearing-apparel, including many elegant, costly dresses, and also rare and valuable laces, which she had been accustomed to wear upon different dresses when on visits, or frequenting theatres, or attending dinners, balls, and receptions. A portion of the laces was made by her ancestors upon their estates in Russia. After remaining some weeks in the city of New York, she started upon a journey westward, going first to Albany, and taking with her, among other things, two of the trunks brought to this country. Her ultimate purpose was to visit a warmer climate, and, upon reaching Chicago, to determine whether to visit California, New Orleans, Havana, and probably Rio Janeiro. After passing a day or so at Albany, she took passage on the cars of the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company for Niagara Falls, delivering to the authorized agents of the company for transportation as her baggage the two trunks above described, which contained the larger portion of the dress-laces brought with her from Europe. Upon arriving at Niagara Falls she ascertained that one of the trunks, during transportation from Albany to the Falls, had been materially injured, its locks broken, its contents disturbed, and more than two hundred yards of dress-lace abstracted from the trunk in which it had been carefully placed before she left the city of New York. The company declined to pay the sum demanded as the value of the missing laces; and, having denied all liability therefor, this action was instituted to recover the damages which the defendant in error claimed to have sustained by reason of the loss of her property.

Upon the first trial of the case, in 1873, the jury, being unable to agree, was discharged. A second trial took place in the year 1875. Upon the conclusion of the evidence in chief at the last trial, the company moved a dismissal of the action, and, at the same time, submitted numerous instructions which it asked to be then given to the jury, among which was one peremptorily directing a verdict in its favor. That motion was overruled, and the court declined to instruct the jury as requested. Subsequently, upon the conclusion of the evidence upon both sides, the motion for a peremptory instruction in behalf of the company was renewed, and again overruled. The court thereupon gave its charge, to which the company filed numerous exceptions, and also submitted written requests, forty-two in number, for instructions to the jury. The court refused to instruct the jury as asked, or otherwise than as shown in its own charge. To the action of the court in the several respects indicated the company excepted in due form. The jury returned a verdict against the company for the sum of $10,000, although the evidence, in some of its aspects, placed the value of the missing laces very far in excess of that amount.

It would extend this opinion to an improper length, and could serve no useful purpose, were we to enter upon a discussion of the various exceptions, unusual in their number, to the action of the court in the admission and exclusion of evidence, as well as in refusing to charge the jury as requested by the company. Certain controlling propositions are presented for our consideration, and upon their determination the substantial rights of parties seem to depend. If, in respect of these propositions, no error was committed, the judgment should be affirmed without any reference to points of a minor and merely technical nature, which do not involve the merits of the case, or the just rights of the parties.

In behalf of the company it is earnestly claimed that the court erred in not giving a peremptory instruction for a verdict in its behalf. This position, however, is wholly untenable. Had there been no serious controversy about the facts, and had the law upon the undisputed evidence precluded any recovery whatever against the company, such an instruction would have been proper. 1 Wall. 369; 11 How. 372; 19 id. 269; 22 Wall. 121. The court could not have given such an instruction in this case without usurping the functions of the jury. This will, however, more clearly appear from what is said in the course of this opinion.

The main contention of the company, upon the trial below, was that good faith required the defendant in error, when delivering her trunks for transportation, to inform its agents of the peculiar character and extraordinary value of the laces in question; and that her failure in that respect, whether intentional or not, was, in itself, a fraud upon the carrier, which should prevent any recovery in this action.

The Circuit Court refused, and, in our opinion, rightly, to so instruct the jury. We are not referred to any legislative enactment restricting or limiting the responsibility of passenger carriers by land for articles carried as baggage. Nor is it pretended that the plaintiff in error had, at the date of these transactions, established or promulgated any regulation as to the quantity or the value of baggage which passengers upon its cars might carry, without extra compensation, under the general contract to carry the person. Further, it is not claimed that any inquiry was made of the defendant in error, either when the trunks were taken into the custody of the carrier, or at any time prior to the alleged loss, as to the value of their contents. It is undoubtedly competent for carriers of passengers, by specific regulations, distinctly brought to the knowledge of the passenger, which are reasonable in their character and not inconsistent with any statute or their duties to the public, to protect themselves against liability, as insurers, for baggage exceeding a fixed amount in value, except upon additional compensation, proportioned to the risk. And in order that such regulations may be practically effective, and the carrier advised of the full extent of its responsibility, and, consequently, of the degree of precaution necessary upon its part, it may rightfully require, as a condition precedent to any contract for the transportation of baggage, information from the passenger as to its value; and if the value thus disclosed exceeds that which the passenger may reasonably demand to be transported as baggage without extra compensation, the carrier, at its option, can make such additional charge as the risk fairly justifies. It is also undoubtedly true that the carrier may be discharged from liability for the full value of the passenger's baggage, if the latter, by false statements, or by any device or artifice, puts off inquiry as to such value, whereby is imposed upon the carrier responsibility beyond what it was bound to assume in consideration of the ordinary fare charged for the transportation of the person. But in the absence of legislation limiting the responsibility of carriers for the baggage of passengers; in the absence of reasonable regulations upon the subject by the carrier, of which the passenger has knowledge; in the absence of inquiry of the passenger as to the value of the articles carried, under the name of baggage, for his personal use and convenience when travelling; and in the absence of conduct upon the part of the passenger misleading the carrier as to the value of his baggage,-the court cannot as matter of law, declare, as it was in effect requested in this case to do, that the mere failure of the passenger, unasked, to disclose the value of his baggage is a fraud upon the carrier, which defeats all right of recovery. The instructions asked by the company virtually assumed that the general law governing the rights, duties, and responsibilities of passenger carriers prescribed a definite, fixed limit of value, beyond which the carrier was not liable for baggage, except under a special contract or upon previous notice as to value. We are not, however, referred to any adjudged case, or to any elementary treatise which sustains that proposition, without qualification. In the very nature of things, no such rule could be established by the courts in virtue of any inherent power they possess. The quantity or kind or value of the baggage which a passenger may carry under the contract for the transportation of his person depends upon a variety of circumstances which do not exist in every case. 'That which one traveller,' says Erle, C. J., in Philpot v. Northwestern Railway Co. (19 C. B. N. S. 321), 'would consider indispensable, would be deemed superfluous and unnecessary by another. But the general habits and wants of mankind will be taken in the mind of the carrier when he receives a passenger for conveyance.' Some of the cases seem to announce the broad doctrine that, by general law, in the absence of legislation, or special regulations by the carrier, of the character indicated, a passenger may take, without extra compensation, such articles adapted to personal use as his necessities, comfort, convenience, or even gratification may suggest; and that whatever may be the quantity or value of such articles, the carrier is responsible for all damages or loss to them, from whatever source, unless from the act of God or the public enemy. But that, in our judgment, is not an accurate statement of the law. Whether articles of wearing-apparel, in any particular case, constitute baggage, as that term is understood in the law, for which the carrier is responsible as insurer, depends upon the inquiry whether they are such in quantity and value as passengers under like circumstances ordinarily or usually carry for personal use when travelling. 'The implied undertaking,' says Mr. Angell, 'of the proprietors of stage-coaches, railroads, and steamboats to carry in safety the baggage of passengers is not unlimited, and cannot be extended beyond ordinary baggage, or such baggage as a traveller usually carries with him for his personal convenience.' Angell, Carriers, sect. 115. In Hannibal Railroad v. Swift (12 Wall. 272), this court, speaking through Mr. Justice Field, said that the contract to carry the person 'only implies an undertaking to transport such a limited quantity of articles as are ordinarily taken by travellers for their personal use and convenience, such quantity depending, of course, upon the station of the party, the object and length of his journey, and many other considerations.' To the same effect is a decision of the Queen's Bench in Macrow v. Great Western Railway Co. (Law Rep. 6 Q. B. 121), where Chief Justice Cockburn announced the true rule to be 'that whatever the passenger takes with him for his personal use or convenience, according to the habits or wants of the particular class to which he belongs, either with reference to the immediate necessities or to the ultimate purpose of the journey, must be considered as personal luggage.' 2 Parsons, Contr., 199. To the extent, therefore, that the articles carried by the passenger for his personal use exceed in quantity and value such as are ordinarily or usually carried by passengers of like station and pursuing like journeys, they are not baggage for which the carrier, by general law, is responsible as insurer. In cases of abuse by the passenger of the privilege which the law gives him, the carrier secures such exemption from responsibility, not, how ever, because the passenger, uninquired of, failed to disclose the character and value of the articles carried, but because the articles themselves, in excess of the amount usually or ordinarily carried, under like circumstances, would not constitute baggage within the true meaning of the law. The laces in question confessedly constituted a part of the wearing-apparel of the defendant in error. They were adapted to and exclusively designed for personal use, according to the convenience, comfort, or tastes, during the extended journey upon which she had entered. They were not merchandise, nor is there any evidence that they were intended for sale of for purposes of business. Whether they were such articles in quantity and value as passengers of like station and under like circumstances ordinarily or usually carry for their personal use, and to subserve their convenience, gratification, or comfort while travelling, was not a pure question of law for the sole or final determination of the court, but a question of fact for the jury, under proper guidance from the court as to the law governing such cases. It was for the jury to say to what extent, if any, the baggage of defendant in error exceeded in quantity and value that which was usually carried without extra compensation, and to disallow any claim for such excess.

Upon examining the carefully guarded instruction given to the jury, we are unable to see that the court below omitted any thing essential to a clear comprehension of the issues, or announced any principle or doctrine not in harmony with settled law. After submitting to the jury the disputed question as to whether the laces were, in fact, in the trunk of the defendant in error, when delivered to the company at Albany for transportation to Niagara Falls, the court charaged the jury, in substance, that every traveller was entitled to provide for the exigencies of his journey in the way of baggage, was not limited to articles which were absolutely essential, but could carry such as were usually carried by persons travelling, for their comfort, convenience, and gratification upon the such journeys; that the liability of carries could not be maintained to the extent of making them responsible for such unusual articles as the exceptional fancies, habits, or idiosyncrasies of some particular individual may prompt him to carry; that their responsibility as insurers was limited to such articles as it was customary or reasonable for travellers of the same class, in general, to take for such journeys as the one which was the subject of inquiry, and did not extend to those which the caprice of a particular traveller might lead that traveller to take; that if the company delivered to the defendant in error, aside from the laces in question, baggage which had been carried, and which was sufficient for her as reasonable baggage, within the rules laid down, she was not entitled to recover; that if she carried the laces in question for the purpose of having them safely kept and stored by railroad companies and hotel-keepers, and not for the purpose of using them, as occasion might require, for her gratification, comfort, or convenience, the company was not liable; that if any portion of the missing articles were reasonable and proper for her to carry, and all was not, they should allow her the value of that portion.

Looking at the whole scope and bearing of the charge, and interpreting what was said, as it must necessarily have been understood both by the court and jury, we do not perceive that any error was committed to the prejudice of the company, or of which it can complain. No error of law appearing upon the record, this court cannot reverse the judgment because, upon examination of the evidence, we may be of the opinion that the jury should have returned a verdict for a less amount. If the jury acted upon a gross mistake of facts, or were governed by some improper influence or bias, the remedy therefore rested with the court below, under its general power to set aside the verdict. But that court finding that the verdict was abundantly sustained by the evidence, and that there was no ground to suppose that the jury had not performed their duty impartially and justly, refused to disturb the verdict, and overruled a motion for new trial. Whether its action, in that particular, was erroneous or not, our power is restricted by the Constitution to the determination of the questions of law arising upon the record. Our authority does not extend to a re-examination of facts which have been tried by the jury under instructions correctly defining the legal rights of parties. Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 446; 21 How. 167; Insurance Company v. Folsom, 18 Wall. 249.

It is, perhaps, proper to refer to one other point suggested in the elaborate brief of counsel for the company. Our attention is called to section 4281 of the Revised Statutes, which declares that 'if any shipper of platina, gold, gold-dust, coins, jewelry,. . . trinkets,. . . silk in a manufactured or unmanufactured form, whether wrought up or not wrought up with any other material, furs or laces, or any of them, contained in any parcel, package, or bundle, shall lade the same as freight or baggage on any vessel, without, at the time of such lading, giving to the master, clerk, agent, or owner of such vessel receiving the same a written notice of the true character and value thereof, and having the same entered on the bill of lading therefor, the master and owner of such vessel shall not be liable as carriers thereof in any form or manner; nor shall any such master or owner be liable for any of such goods beyond the value and according to the character thereof, so notified and entered.'

It is sufficient to say that the section has no application whatever to this case. It has reference alone to the liability of carriers by water who transport goods and merchandise of the kind designated. It has no reference to carriers by land, and does not assume to declare or restrict their liability for the baggage of passengers.

Judgment affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE FIELD, with whom concurred MR. JUSTICE MILLER and MR. JUSTICE STRONG, dissenting.


text: Talk:Railroad Company v. Fraloff/Opinion of the Court


text:
Railroad Company v. Fraloff/Dissent Field

MR. JUSTICE FIELD, with whom concurred MR. JUSTICE MILLER and MR. JUSTICE STRONG, dissenting.

I dissent from the judgment of the court in this case. I do not think that two hundred and seventy-five yards of lace, claimed by the owner to be worth $75,000, and found by the jury to be of the value of $10,000, can, as a matter of law, be properly considered as baggage of a passenger, for the loss of which the railroad company, in the absence of any special agreement, should be held liable.


text: Talk:Railroad Company v. Fraloff/Dissent Field


text:
United States v. Hirsch

CERTIFICATE of division in opinion between the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

An indictment, consisting of four counts, was found, Feb. 3, 1877, against Hiram Hirsch and others, who pleaded that the offences therein charged had been committed more than three years before the finding of the indictment.

The first count was drawn under sect. 5440, Rev. State., and charges the defendant with a conspiracy, entered into on the first day of September, 1873, to defraud the United States out of the duties on certain described merchandise to be thereafterwards imported into the United States.

The second count charges a conspiracy, entered into on the thirteenth day of September, 1873, to defraud the United States out of duties on certain merchandise theretofore imported into the United States. The remaining counts were drawn under sect. 5445, and charge that the defendants knowingly effected an entry of the goods at the custom-house, by a fraudulent invoice of them, and by a false classification as to their quality and value.

The United States demurred to the plea, and the judges of the Circuit Court were divided in opinion upon the question 'whether the trial is barred by sect. 1044, the indictment having been found more than three years after the commission of the alleged offence, or whether it is within the provisions of sect. 1046, as having been found within five years next after the commission of the alleged offence.'

It is enacted by sect. 1044 that 'no person shall be prosecuted for any offence, not capital, except as provided in sect. 1046, unless the indictment is found within three years next after such offence shall have been committed;' and by sect. 1046, that 'no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any crime arising under the revenue laws or the slave-trade laws of the United States, unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted within five years next after the committing of such crime.'

The Solicitor-General for the United States.

Mr. George Hoadly, for the defendants, cited United States v. Mayo, 1 Gall. 396; United States v. Norton, 91 U.S. 566.

MR. JUSTICE MILLER, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

title: United States v. Hirsch


text: Talk:United States v. Hirsch

title: Talk:United States v. Hirsch


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

The question before us is whether the indictment describes crimes arising under the revenue laws of the United States.

There can be little doubt that the crimes set out in the third and fourth counts, conforming as they do to the description of the offence found in sect. 5445, of a false classification of goods as to value and quality, and effecting an entry of goods at less than the true weight or measure, arise under the revenue laws. The section, intended solely for the protection of the revenue arising from customs, was originally the third section of the act of March 3, 1863, entitled 'An Act to prevent frauds upon the revenue, to provide for the more certain and speedy collection of claims against the United States, and for other purposes.' 12 Stat. 737. It is, beyond question, a revenue law, and the offence defined by it is therefore a crime arising under the revenue laws of the United States.

With regard to the first two counts the answer is not so clear.

The gravamen of the offence here is the conspiracy. For this there must be more than one person engaged. Although by the statute something more than the common-law definition of a conspiracy is necessary to complete the offence, to wit, some act done to effect the object of the conspiracy, it remains true that the combination of minds in an unlawful purpose is the foundation of the offence, and that a party who did not join in the previous conspiracy cannot, under this section, be convicted on the overt act.

Nor does the section, as found in the Revised Statutes or in the original act, make any special reference to the revenue or to the revenue laws. Its language is: 'If two or more persons conspire, either to commit any offence against the United States or to defraud the United States in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more such parties do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, all the parties shall be liable,' &c.

The conspiracy here described is a conspiracy to commit any offence against the United States. The fraud mentioned is any fraud against them. It may be against the coin, or consist in cheating the government of its land or other property. The offence may be treason, and persons have been convicted under this statute for a conspiracy to do the acts which constitute treason against the United States.

Since, then, the section does not mention the revenue or the revenue laws, but in terms includes every form of conspiracy against the United States, and every form of conspiracy to defraud them, it is difficult to see how the crimes it defines, and which are punishable under it, can be said to arise under the revenue laws. Specific acts which are violations of the laws made to protect the revenue may be said to be crimes arising under the revenue laws, as are those in the third and fourth counts; but a conspiracy to defraud the government, though it may be directed to the revenue as its object, is punishable by the general law against all conspiracies, and can hardly be said, in any just sense, to arise under the revenue laws.

In support of the opposite view, it is said that sect. 5440 was originally sect. 30 of the act of March 2, 1867 (14 Stat. 484), which was a revenue law, and that this section must be held also to be a revenue law.

It must be admitted that in construing any part of the Revised Statutes it is admissible, and often necessary, to recur to its connection in the act of which it was originally a part.

The force of the argument arising from finding an enactment in a statute directed mainly to a particular subject is much diminished by our experience of the manner in which incongruous legislation is combined in the same bill as passed by the two Houses of Congress. The important principle, revolutionary in the law of evidence, by which parties to suits and persons having a pecuniary interest in the results are made competent witnesses, is found in a few words, inserted as a proviso to an appropriation bill.

The act of 1867 is entitled 'An Act to amend existing laws relating to internal revenue, and for other purposes,' and it consists of thirty-four sections. Every section except the one defining conspiracies has reference to internal revenue, and if the argument is worth any thing, the act must be limited to that kind of revenue.

But the title indicates that other purposes than revenue may be found in the provisions of the act.

Looking, then, to the section in question, which makes no mention of revenue whatever, but enacts in the most general terms a law against conspiracies, we are of opinion that one of the other purposes of the act was to adopt this general penal provision, and that an offence punishable under that section alone is not a crime arising under the revenue laws, though the overt act necessary to be alleged may be one affecting the revenue of the United States.

It will be certified to the Circuit Court that the plea of the Statute of Limitations of three years is good in bar of the first two counts of the indictment, and is bad as to the third and fourth; and it is

So ordered.


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


text:
Mining Company v. Taylor

ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Nevada.

This was an action of ejectment brought Dec. 23, 1874, by James D. Taylor against The Union Consolidated Silver Mining Company, to recover the possession of an undivided interest, equal to five feet, of a mining claim and lode, part of the Comstock lode, situate in the Virginia Mining District, in Storey County, State of Nevada. Under an agreement of the parties the case was, without a jury, tried by the court, which found as facts that the parties were tenants in common of the mining claim known as the Union claim, for an undivided interest in which the suit was brought; that they claimed and derived title from the same source, namely, Payne and Cook, the original locators of the claim; that one Solomon Wood, on the eleventh day of October, 1862, was the owner of at least an undivided fifty feet of the claim, having derived his title thereto regularly from the original locators, and that on that day he sold and conveyed by deed to the plaintiff an undivided five feet of the claim, describing it as 'five undivided feet interest in the claims of the Union Company, located upon the Comstock silver lode; said claims consist of three hundred feet, bounded north by the claims of the Sierra Nevada Silver Mining Company, and on the south by the claims of the Ophir Silver Mining Company;' that during the years 1860, 1861, 1862, 1863, and 1864, the original locators of the Union claim, and others deriving title from them, including Wood, the immediate grantor of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff himself, expended over $30,000 in prospecting and developing the claim, though the plaintiff personally had done no work upon it since 1863, nor had any been done for him, except so far as the work done by his co-tenants can be considered work done for him; that after the plaintiff's title had been acquired, namely, on the thirtieth day of September, 1863, C. H. Reynolds and others, all of whom had derived title from the original locators of the mining claim, sold and conveyed all their interests therein to a California corporation, styled the Union Gold and Silver Mining Company; and that, on the twenty-seventh day of May, 1874, that company sold and conveyed all its interest in the Union claim to the defendant, a California corporation, organized in and under the laws of that State.

The court further found that the defendant and its grantors had been in possession of the ground in controversy during more than two years before the commencement of this action, and were in possession when the suit was brought, and had been for more than five months before that time in possession of the Union claim, which extends on the Comstock lode a distance of three hundred feet, including the ground in dispute, and that the plaintiff had made no demand to be let into possession of the premises before commencing his action, but that the defendant was in the exclusive adverse possession before that time, and had in fact ousted the plaintiff from the possession.

In the course of the trial the company excepted to the admission of exhibits 'A' and 'C,' and certain mining rules and regulations. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff. The company thereupon sued out this writ, and assigns for error that the court below erred: 1st, In admitting as evidence said exhibits and said rules; 2d, in ruling that the plaintiff was entitled to recover; 3d, in giving judgment upon the facts found for five instead of two and a half feet; 4th, in giving judgment for the plaintiff, when the finding, which is special, and should therefore contain every fact essential to a recovery, does not show such facts of conveyance, possession, &c., as result necessarily in the legal conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to the property sued for. Exhibit A.

'COOK & PAYNE to A. KENNEDY & CO.

'VIRGINIA CITY, Sept. 20, 1859.

'This is to certify that we, D. B. Cook, J. Cook, and E. Payne, have this day sold, bargained, and conveyed all our rights to and interest in a certain set of mining claims to A. Kennedy & Co., said claims being situated as follows: lying and being in the Virginia district north of the Comstock claims and situated on the Comstock and Penrod vein, for and in consideration of which A. Kennedy & Co. agree to prospect the same thoroughly, and when pay dirt is struck, then Cook, Payne, & Co. agree to pay one-half of the expense and come in equal partners to the same, Kennedy & Co. receiving one undivided half of six hundred feet.

'D. B. COOK.

'JAMES COOK.

'E. PAYNE.

'Witness: S. McFADDEN.

'Filed Sept. 7, '60, at 2 1/2 P.M.

'Rec. Sept. 8, '60, at 3 P.M., p. 548, Vol. B, Kinsey's records.' Exhibit C.

'GOLD HILL, UTAH TERRITORY, July 20, 1859.

'This is _____ show that I, Edward Payne, have this day admitted David B. Cook into the claim north of the Comstock and Co.'s stakes as an equal partner in the six hundred feet of the quartz lead, and known as the Comstock lead, and running north of the Comstock stakes. And als-give the power to manage that claim to work or let as he D. B. Cook sees fit.

'EDWARD PAYNE.

'JAMES COOK.'

Mr. Harry I. Thornton and Mr. H. L. Smoot for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. W. E. F. Deal, contra.

MR. JUSTICE STRONG, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Mining Company v. Taylor


text: Talk:Mining Company v. Taylor

title: Talk:Mining Company v. Taylor


text:
Mining Company v. Taylor/Opinion of the Court

Upon the facts found by the Circuit Court it is evident that Taylor, the plaintiff below, was entitled to recover, unless he was barred by the Statute of Limitations. Claiming, as both parties did, under Payne and Cook, the regularity and validity of the location of the mining claim are not in question. And when, in 1862, the plaintiff purchased from one of the owners of the claim an undivided interest therein, and went into possession with his grantor and with others deriving title from the original locators, expending large sums in prospecting and developing it (acts which the State statute declares shall constitute adverse possession), he became a tenant in common with those who were then the owners. He was such when the Union Gold and Silver Mining Company purchased the interest of other owners. By that purchase that company succeeded to a tenancy in common with him, and so did the defendant when it became the purchaser. Although after 1863 the plaintiff did no work personally upon the property, he did not thereby lose the possession he had after his purchase from Wood. The possession of his co-tenants was his possession. They held it for him until he was ousted. That this is a settled rule of law is not denied. And we find nothing in the statutes of Nevada to which we have been referred that is at variance with the rule, even when applicable to mining claims. That it does apply is expressly held in Van Valkenburg v. Huff, 1 Nev. 142. It follows that neither the defendant nor its grantor had any possession adverse to the plaintiff prior to the time when the ouster was made, and no ouster is found to have been made two years before the suit was brought. The finding that the defendant was in possession more than two years before suit was brought is not a finding of an adverse possession during all that period, such as to constitute a bar under the Statute of Limitations. Such a bar, therefore, does not exist, unless the ouster took place anterior to the commencement of those two years; and as that is a matter of defence, it should appear affirmatively, to be of any avail.

It is, however, useless to enlarge upon this, for the findings show clearly that the defendant has no protection under the Statutes of Limitations. The plaintiff was in possession with others who derived their title the original locators, until the Union Gold and Silver Mining Company, a California corporation, acquired their title, in September, 1863. After that time the statute could not run against him in favor of that corporation, or its grantee, the defendant, also a foreign corporation. The Statutes of Limitations of Nevada are held by the Supreme Court of that State to except foreign corporations from their protection. Robinson v. Imperial Silver Mining Co., 5 Nev. 44; Barstow v. Union Consolidated Silver Mining Co., 10 id. 386. Hence those statutes cannot be set up by the defendant as a defence in this case; and as the Circuit Court found as a fact that the plaintiff had been ousted by the defendant from his property, no reason appears why he was not entitled to recover according to the interest which he held prior to the ouster.

It is insisted, however, that, if entitled to recover at all, judgment should have been given for no more than two and a half undivided feet of the mining claim. This position cannot be maintained. It is true the original locators claimed six hundred feet extending along the Comstock vein, but of more than three hundred feet they never had an undisputed title, and that three hundred feet lies next to the claim of the Ophir Company on the south. Indeed, the finding is express, that the Union claim begins at a point fifteen hundred feet north of the claim of the Ophir Company, and extends northward on the Comstock lode three hundred feet, including the ground in dispute. Of that claim Solomon Wood, the plaintiff's grantor, was the owner of at least fifty feet undivided; and he sold and conveyed to the plaintiff five undivided feet interest therein, describing the claim as consisting of three hundred feet, bounded on the south by the claim of the Ophir Company. There can be no doubt, therefore, what was intended to be conveyed. Plainly, it was five undivided feet of that three hundred, and, therefore, whether the whole claim in fact consisted of three hundred or six hundred feet can make no difference. Owning, as Wood did, fifty feet undivided, it was in his power to convey, as he did, an undivided interest of five feet in the southern three hundred.

It is objected by the plaintiff in error that the special finding of the court was not sufficiently full and formal to justify any judgment; that it did not find the essential facts, but left presumptions of fact to be drawn; that it did not find how Solomon Wood became the owner, or set out in words the conveyances under which the parties claimed. Whether a special finding of facts by the court must have all the requisites of a special verdict, it is not necessary now to assert or deny, for all that is essential to such a verdict is an ascertainment of the ultimate facts. A jury is not to find evidence. We think the ultimate facts were sufficiently found in this case. The ownership of Wood in 1862 was an ultimate fact, and even if Taylor had no other right to the possession than that which he derived from Wood by conveyance, it was not necessary to set forth the chain of conveyances by which Wood became the owner. A transfer of possession is sufficient. They would have been but evidence of Wood's ownership. Besides, a written conveyance is not necessary to the transfer of a mining claim. Table Mountain Tunnel Co. v. Stranahan, 20 Cal. 198. But Wood was in possession when he sold to Taylor, and Taylor then went into joint possession within. That possession is enough to justify a recovery by him against a disseisor.

The only other assignment of error is the first, and it needs no consideration. Apart from the fact that the defendant claims under Payne and Cook, and is therefore not at liberty to dispute their title, it is impossible to discover how it could have been injured by the reception of Exhibits A and C. The instrument C was certainly sufficient to transfer an interest in the mining claim, and the mining rules, at worst, were only immaterial. The admission of immaterial or irrelevant evidence is no sufficient reason for reversing a judgment, when it is apparent, as in this case, that it cannot have affected the verdict or the finding injuriously to the plaintiff in error.

Judgment affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE FIELD did not sit in this case.


text: Talk:Mining Company v. Taylor/Opinion of the Court


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Hadfield, George (d.1826)


text:
Tillson v. United States (100 U.S. 43)

APPEAL from the Court of Claims.

This was a suit brought by Robert Tillson & Co. against the United States.

The Court of Claims found the following facts:--'I. The claimants and the defendants entered into the various contracts and agreements set forth in the petition.

'II. The claimants, at various times between the 9th of October, 1862, and the 24th of October, 1864, delivered horse equipments and infantry accoutrements, under said contracts and agreements, to the defendants' officers at the United States arsenal in St. Louis, to the amount of $494,972.66.

'III. There were one hundred and fifteen distinct deliveries of the above-described goods made by the claimants, extending from the 9th of October, 1862, to the 24th of October, 1864; and the goods delivered were then, at the respective times of delivery, inspected and approved by the defendants' officers, and bills therefor were duly authenticated by the proper officers of the Ordnance Department, as provided by the contract, and no negligence or delay is attributable to the officers of the Ordnance Department in regard to the inspection of the goods or the issuing of the vouchers. The vouchers so received by the claimants were by them presented to the Ordnance Office in Washington, and were by the Ordnance Office transmitted to the treasury, to be audited and paid, and no delay in so transmitting them is attributable to the Ordnance Office. After the vouchers reached the Treasury Department, intervals of different length occurred before they were audited and drafts issued in payment thereof. The shortest interval between the receipt of a voucher by the Treasury Department and the issuing of the draft in payment was seven days, and the longest was one hundred and fourteen days; the average was thirty-six days. During the period of the fulfilment of their contracts and agreements, before described, the claimants' buiness necessities compelled them to borrow money by hypothecating or selling their vouchers, and the rate of discount paid by them generally was ten per cent per annum.

'IV. A portion of the payments made to the claimants upon the vouchers before described were made, to the extent of twenty-five per cent thereof, by certificates of indebtedness issued under the act of 1st March, 1862. 12 Stat. 352. These certificates were sent by mail to the claimants, accompanied by ordinary treasury drafts for the remaining seventy-five per cent of the payments. The claimants neither solicited such certificates nor objected to them. Being below par in the market, the claimants sold them at a discount of seven and a half per cent. The total amount of the certificates so issued to them was $77,000, and the discount or loss suffered by the claimants in disposing of them for cash was $5,775.'

Upon the foregoing facts that court decided as conclusions of law,--

'1. The loss and damage suffered by the claimants from the failure to keep and perform the contracts referred to in the findings aforesaid, as to the time and manner of payment thereof, were too remote to be a subject of recovery in this action, within the meaning and intent of the private act for the relief of the claimants, passed June 23, 1874.

'2. The claimants, by voluntarily accepting certificates of indebtedness in part payment of their demands, are concluded from saying that such payments were in violation of the terms of their contracts with the government.

'3. In contracting with the government, the claimants submitted themselves to the regular routine of public business, and are not entitled to recover damages for the delays which occurred in auditing their vouchers in the Treasury Department.'

The court rendered judgment dismissing the petition of the plaintiffs, and they appealed.

The act of June 23, 1874, referred to by the Court of Claims, under which this suit was brought, is as follows:--

'An Act for the relief of Robert Tillson & Company, Quincy, Illinois:

'Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that are claim of Robert Tillson and Company, of Quincy, Illinois, for loss and damage growing out of the failure of the government of the United States to keep and perform the contract or contracts, as to time and manner of payment, under which certain horse equipments and infantry accoutrements were manufactured between the months of September, 1862, and July, 1864, by said Tillson and Company, for said government, be and the same is hereby referred to the Court of Claims, and such court is authorized and directed to investigate the same, and to ascertain, determine, and adjudge the amount equitably due said firm, if any, for such loss and damage.'''Mr. Matt. H. Carpenter and Mr. Benjamin F. Grafton'' for the appellants.

The Solicitor-General, contra.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Tillson v. United States (100 U.S. 43)


text: Talk:Tillson v. United States (100 U.S. 43)


text:
Tillson v. United States (100 U.S. 43)/Opinion of the Court

We have no doubt it was the wish of those who procured the passage of the special statute under which the Court of Claims took jurisdiction of this suit, to obtain from Congress authority for that court to give a judgment against the United States at least for interest, in case it should be found that payments on the contracts held by the claimants had been unreasonably delayed. But if Congress had desired to grant such authority, it would have been easy to have said so in express terms; and because it did not say so, we are led irresistibly to the conclusion that it did not intend to give any such power. By the statute, the court was required to investigate the claim, and 'ascertain, determine, and adjudge the amount equitably due such firm, if any, for such loss or damage.' There is nowhere any intimation that the investigation is to be conducted otherwise than judicially. The reference was made to the court as a court, and not to the judges as arbitrators. The determination is to be made according to the fixed rules which govern that court in the adjudication of causes, and not at the discretion of the judges. The same principles of jurisprudence and the same statutory regulations as to practice are to be applied here that would be if the case had come into the court under its general jurisdiction. It is to be ascertained and determined what, if any thing, is due the claimants from the government, according to the rules of law applicable to the settlement in that court of controversies between the government and its citizens. The special statute does not even provide that the adjustment shall be made upon principles applicable to suits between citizens. To our minds the word 'equitably,' as here used, means no more than that the rules of law applicable to the case shall be construed liberally in favor of the claimants.

As between citizens, no allowance could be made for loss of profits consequent on the advance in the price of materials while payments were withheld, nor for the discount on the certificates of indebtedness sold in the market. Such damages are too remote. Interest, however, would have been recoverable as against a citizen, if the payments were unreasonably delayed. But with the government the rule is different, for in addition to the practice which has long prevailed in the departments of not allowing interest on claims presented, except it is in some way specially provided for, the statute under which the Court of Claims is organized expressly declares 'that no interest shall be allowed on any claim up to the time of the rendition of judgment thereon in the Court of Claims, unless upon a contract expressly stipulating for interest.' Rev. Stat., sect. 1091. This is conclusive. No interest was stipulated for in this contract, and the prohibition against its allowance has not been removed in favor of the claimants.

Judgment affirmed.


text: Talk:Tillson v. United States (100 U.S. 43)/Opinion of the Court


text:
Fairfield v. County of Gallatin

4. Where, therefore, pursuant to the authority conferred by a legislative enactment, such a donation was voted by a county in Illinois before the adoption of that Constitution, the donation may be thereafter completed by the issue of the requisite bonds.

ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Illinois.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. S. M. Cullom and Mr. O. J. Bailey for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. Bluford Wilson, contra.

MR. JUSTICE STRONG delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Fairfield v. County of Gallatin


text: Talk:Fairfield v. County of Gallatin

title: Talk:Fairfield v. County of Gallatin


text:
Fairfield v. County of Gallatin/Opinion of the Court

The facts of this case, so far as they are needed to exhibit the question presented by the writ of error, are very few. The defendant, on and prior to Feb. 28, 1868, was a lawfully organized and existing county of the State of Illinois, through which was located the railroad of the Illinois Southeastern Railway Company, a company incorporated on the 25th of February, 1867. The county was authorized by the legislature of the State to donate to the railroad company, as a bonus or inducement towards the building of the railroad, any sum not exceeding $100,000, and was authorized to order the clerk of the county court, or board of supervisors of the county, to issue county bonds to the amount donated, and deliver them to the company, provided that no donation exceeding $50,000 should be made until after the question of such larger donation should have been submitted to the legal voters of the county, at an election called and conducted in the usual manner. The statute further enacted, that if a majority of the ballots cast at such an election should be in favor of a donation, it should be the duty of the county court or board of supervisors to donate some amount, not less than $50,000 nor more than $100,000, to the company, and to order the issue of county bonds for the amount so donated.

On the 28th of February, 1868, in pursuance of these statutory enactments, an election of the legal voters of the county was held to determine whether the county would donate $100,000 of its bonds in aid of the said road, and the election resulted in authorizing their issue. The bonds were accordingly issued by the county judge and county clerk, under the direction of the county court, and they were delivered to the railroad company on the 6th or 8th of October, 1870, after the conditions precedent to their delivery had been fulfilled. The plaintiff is the holder of coupons belonging to said issue, having purchased them before due, in the usual course of his business.

The defence set up is, in substance, that in consequence of a provision in the new Constitution of the State, which came into force July 2, 1870, the authority to issue and deliver the bonds had ceased to exist before the issue was made. The section of the Constitution relied upon is in the following words: 'No county, city, town, township, or other municipality shall ever become subscriber to the capital stock of any railroad or private corporation, or make donation to, or loan its credit in aid of such corporation: Provided, however, that the adoption of this article shall not be construed as affecting the right of any such municipality to make such subscriptions, where the same have been authorized under existing laws, by a vote of the people of such municipalities, prior to such adoption.'

The question presented, then, is whether a donation to a railroad company, by a county empowered by the legislature to make such a donation, when approved by a majority of the legal voters of the county at an election held for that purpose, is forbidden by this clause of the Constitution, if it was authorized under laws then existing by a vote of the people of the county prior to the adoption of the Constitution? What should be the answer to the question depends upon the construction that must be given to the section thus quoted. Are donations, thus authorized by a popular vote, within the prohibition, or are they excepted out of it by the proviso?

In Town of Concord v. Portsmouth Savings Bank (92 U.S. 625), we had occasion to construe this section of the State Constitution. We then held that donations by counties or other municipalities to railroad companies were prohibited by it, and that they could not lawfully be made after July 2, 1870, though they had been authorized by a prior statute and by a vote of the people of the county or municipality before the adoption of the Constitution. We were fully aware that it is the peculiar province of the Supreme Court of a State to interpret its organic law, as well as its statutes, and that it is the duty as well as the pleasure of this court to follow and adopt that court's interpretation. But we were not informed, when the case was decided, that any judicial construction had been given to the constitutional provision. It now appears that the Supreme Court of Illinois had previously considered it, and decided that donations, equally with subscriptions, if sanctioned by a popular vote before the adoption of the Constitution, are not prohibited by it, and that they are excepted from the prohibition by the proviso. This was decided by that court in 1874, more than a year before Town of Concord v. Portsmouth Savings Bank came before us; but the decision was not called to our notice, and it was not reported until 1877. It may now be found in Chicago & Iowa Railroad Co. v. Pinckney, 74 Ill. 277. The language of the court is very positive. We quote it at some length, as follows: 'At the time the section of the Constitution referred to was framed, large sums of money in different parts of the State had been voted by municipalities to be subscribed and donated to railroad companies, on condition that railroads then being constructed should be completed within a given time; and the country, whether wisely and judiciously or not, seemed to demand that in cases where the people in these municipalities had, under then existing legislation, voted to aid railroads by subscription or donation prior to the adoption of the Constitution, such subscription or donation should not be affected by the formation of the Constitution. And we have no doubt it was in view of this demand of a large portion of the State that the proviso was engrafted in the foregoing section.'. . . 'A reasonable construction of the whole section will embrace donations as well as subscriptions. In one sense of the term, a donation is a subscription to the capital stock of a company. We have no doubt, at the time this section was framed, there were then in the State quite as many donations voted as there were subscriptions to stock in any other manner, and if a necessity or reason existed to protect a subscription there was also the same reason and demand to protect a donation; and we entertain no doubt it was the intention of the framers of the Constitution, by adding the proviso to the section, to place subscriptions and donations on the same footing.' This authoritative exposition of the meaning of the Constitution of the State by its highest court has repeatedly been recognized by that tribunal. Town of Middleport v. The AEtna Life Insurance Co., 82 Ill. 562; Lippincott v. The Town of Pana, decided Oct. 1, 1879, not yet reported. It has also been the understanding of the legislature of the State that donations as well as subscriptions, if authorized by a vote of the people before the adoption of the Constitution, are saved by the proviso. In 1874, an act of the General Assembly was passed which declared that the liability of all counties, cities, townships, towns, or precincts that had voted aid, donations, or subscriptions to the capital stock of any railroad company, in conformity with the laws of the State, should cease and determine at the expiration of three years after July 1 of that year, and that after that time no bonds should be issued on account of or upon authority of such vote. This implied that up to July, 1877, donations voted before July 2, 1870, were lawful, and might be completed by the issue of bonds. It was an expression of the legislative understanding that such donations were not forbidden by the Constitution. Act of March 17, 1874. A similar act was passed on the 29th of May, 1877, extending the time for issuing bonds for donations upon the authority of a vote of the people until July 1, 1880. It thus appears to have become a rule of property in the State that municipal bonds, issued to railroad companies on account of donations voted by the people before the adoption of the Constitution, are valid, though not issued until after the adoption. Such was the earliest exposition of the Constitution, made by the court of last resort in the State, twice since recognized by it, and recognized also by repeated legislative action. There is every reason to believe that the rule has been relied upon, and that on the faith of it many municipal bonds have been issued, bought, and sold in the markets of the country.

In view of all this, ought this court to adhere to the construction we gave to the State Constitution in ignorance of the fact that the Supreme Court of the State had previously construed it in a different manner? At a very early day it was announced that in cases depending upon the Constitution or statutes of a State this court would adopt the construction of the statutes or Constitution given by the courts of the State, when that construction could be ascertained. Polk's Lessee v. Wendell, 9 Cranch, 87. In Nesmith v. Sheldon (7 How. 812), it is declared to be the 'established doctrine that this court will adopt and follow the decisions of the State courts in the construction of their own Constitution and statutes, when that construction has been settled by the decisions of its highest tribunal.' In Walker v. State Harbor Commissioners (17 Wall. 648), we said, 'This court follows the adjudications of the highest court of the State' in the construction of its statutes. 'Its interpretation is accepted as the true interpretation, whatever may be our opinion of its original soundness.' See also Elmendorf v. Taylor, 10 Wheat. 152; Green v. Neal's Lessee, 6 Pet. 291; Leffingwell v. Warren, 2 Black, 599; Summer v. Hicks, id. 532; Olcott v. The Supervisors, 16 Wall. 678; State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U.S. 575.

Such has been our general rule of decision. Undoubtedly, some exceptions to it have been recognized. One of them is, that when the highest court of a State has given different constructions to its Constitution and laws, at different times, and rights have been acquired under the former construction, we have followed that, and disregarded the latter. The present case is not within that exception, for there have been no conflicting interpretations by the State court of the section of the Constitution we are now called upon to construe. And we are not constrained to refuse following the decision of the State court in order to save rights acquired on the faith of our ruling in Town of Concord v. ''Portsmouth Savings Bank. Groves v. Slaughter'' (15 Pet. 449) may seem to be an exception to the rule, but if carefully examined it will be found to be no exception. In that case, this court held that the Constitution of Mississippi did not, ex proprio vigore, prohibit the introduction of slaves into that State as merchandise or for sale, after the first day of May, 1833, and, therefore, that a promissory note given for the price of slaves thus introduced was not void. This was held, though it appeared that prior to the decision the chancellor of the State had refused to enjoin a judgment at law recovered upon a bond for the purchase of salves brought into the State for sale after May 1, 1833, and the Court of Errors, two judges against one, had affirmed the refusal of the chancellor. But the decision of the chancellor was rested entirely upon the ground that the matter relied upon to obtain the injunction should have been set up as a defence in the suit at law. This was all that was really decided. The opinions expressed in the Court of Errors by the judges upon the question whether the introduction of slaves after May 1, 1833, was prohibited by the Constitution, were extra-judicial, and were so regarded by this court. It was said they were not sufficient to justify this court in considering that the construction of the Constitution in Mississippi had become so fixed and settled as to preclude the Federal Supreme Court from regarding it as an open question. Groves v. Slaughter, therefore, is not an exception to the rule that this court will follow the construction given by the highest court of a State to its Constitution. On the contrary, the court assented to the rule.

Subsequently, the provision of the Constitution of Mississippi was brought before the courts of the State, and it was settled by the highest tribunals that it did of itself, and without any legislative enactment, prohibit the introduction of slaves as merchandise, and for sale, and render all contracts for the sale of slaves, made after May 1, 1833, illegal and void. Rowan v. Runnels (5 How. 134) then came up to this court, where the same question was presented, and the construction given by this court to the State Constitution was adhered to in order to support a contract for slaves purchased, and apparently only for that reason. Chief Justice Taney, in delivering the opinion of the court, said that in Groves v. Slaughter the court was satisfied that the validity of these sales had not been brought into question in any of the tribunals of the State until long after the contract was made, and that as late as the beginning of 1841, when Groves v. Slaughter was decided, it did not appear from any thing before the court that the construction of the clause in question had been settled either way, by judicial decision, in the courts of the State. He added: 'Undoubtedly this court will always feel itself bound to respect the decisions of the State courts, and, from the time they are made, will regard them as conclusive in all cases upon the construction of their own Constitution and laws. But we ought not to give to them a retroactive effect, and allow them to render invalid contracts entered into with citizens of other States, which, in the judgment of this court, were lawfully made.'

That case is totally unlike the present. The bonds in question now were issued in October, 1870. In 1874, the highest court of the State decided that such bonds could be lawfully issued, and that they were not forbidden by the Constitution. It was, therefore, conclusively settled more than a year before Town of Concord v. Portsmouth Savings Bank was decided by us, what the meaning of the Constitution was. We are now asked to decline following the construction given and since recognized by the State court, and to adhere to that adopted by us in ignorance of the prior judgment of the State court, and that not, as in Rowan v. Runnels, to uphold contracts, but to strike them down, though they were made in accordance with the settled law of the State. We recognize the importance of the rule stare decisis. We recognize also the other rule, that this court will follow the decisions of State courts, giving a construction to their constitutions and laws, and more especially when those decisions have become rules of property in the States, and when contracts must have been made, or purchases in reliance upon them. And it has been held that this court will abandon its former decision construing a State statute, if the State courts have subsequently given to it a different construction. In Green v. Neal's Lessee (6 Pet. 291), the question raised was whether the court would adhere to its own decision in such a case, or would recede from it and follow the decisions of the State court. In two previous cases a certain construction had been given to a statute of Tennessee in supposed harmony with decisions of the State court. But subsequently it was decided otherwise by the State Supreme Court; and it appeared that the decisions upon which this court had relied were made under peculiar circumstances, and were never in the State considered as fully settling the construction of the act. This court, therefore, overruled its former two decisions, and followed the later construction adopted by the State court. See also Suydam v. Williamson, 24 How. 427. With much more reason may we change our decision construing a State Constitution when no rights have been acquired under it, and when it is made to appear that before the decision was made the highest tribunal of the State had interpreted the Constitution differently, when that interpretation within the State fixed a rule of property, and has never been abandoned. In such a case, we think it our duty to follow the State courts, and adopt as the true construction that which those courts have declared.

The judgment of the Circuit Court will be reversed, and the record remitted with instructions to give judgment for the plaintiff below on the findings made; and it is

So ordered.


text: Talk:Fairfield v. County of Gallatin/Opinion of the Court


text:
Cowell v. Springs Company

ERROR to the Supreme Court of the Territory of Colorado.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. H. C. Alleman for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. F. W. Pitkin for the defendant in error.

MR. JUSTICE FIELD delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Cowell v. Springs Company


text: Talk:Cowell v. Springs Company

title: Talk:Cowell v. Springs Company