text:
Morgan v. Louisiana/Opinion of the Court

This is an action by the State of Louisiana to recover of the defendant taxes levied upon his property for the years 1870 and 1871. The defendant contends that the property was exempt from taxation in his hands, because it was thus exempt whilst held by the New Orleans, Opelousas, and Great Western Railroad Company, from whom it was acquired in part by purchase at a mortgage sale, and in part by purchase at a sheriff's sale upon a money judgment. The facts upon which the defendant relies are substantially these: By an act passed in April, 1853, the legislature of Louisiana incorporated the New Orleans, Opelousas, and Great Western Railroad Company, for the purpose of constructing, working, and maintaining a rail road from Algiers, opposite New Orleans, westward to Berwick's Bay, and thence to Washington, in the parish of St. Landry, to be afterwards extended to a point on the Sabine River most favorable for the purpose of continuing the road through the State of Texas to El Paso on the Rio Grande.

The act provided that the capital stock of the company should be exempt from taxation, and that the works, fixtures, workshops, warehouses, vehicles of transportation, and other appurtenances of the company, should be exempt from taxation for ten years after the completion of the road within the limits of the State; and that the president, engineers, clerks, agents, and servants of the company, should be exempt from jury duty, and from military duty, except in case of invasion or insurrection.

The company was authorized to borrow, from time to time, such sums as might be required for the construction of the road above the amount received from subscriptions to its capital stock, not exceeding $6,000,000, and to secure the loans by mortgaging its property in whole or in part, as might be deemed expedient. Subsequently, in 1856, the legislature passed a general law extending the powers of railroad companies, and providing that, in addition to those already conferred, any railroad company established under the laws of the State might borrow, from time to time, such sums of money as might be required for the construction or repairs of any railroad, and for that purpose might issue bonds or obligations secured by mortgage on the property and franchises of the company, and payable at such times and places as its president and directors might designate.

In 1857 the road of the company was completed as far as Berwick's Bay, a distance of eighty miles from New Orleans and, to obtain funds to continue its construction beyond that point, the directors, in March, 1859, authorized the president to issue two thousand bonds of the company, in sums of $1000 each, and to secure their payment and interest by a first mortgage on the portion of the road completed, together with the land over which the road was constructed, the equipments, appurtenances, rights, and franchises of the company applicable to that portion. Under this authority the bonds were issued and the mortgage executed in April, 1859. With the funds raised by this means work on the road was resumed, and its grading was nearly completed to Opelousas, a distance of eighty miles beyond Berwick's Bay, when, in 1862, the work was discontinued, the road having been seized by the military forces of the United States, by whom it was held until February, 1866, when it was restored to the company. Since its restoration no further work has been done, and the construction of the portion of the road beyond Opelousas to the Sabine River has never been commenced.

The defendant was the owner of several hundred of the mortgage bonds issued; and their coupons not being paid, proceedings were, in 1869, instituted by him in the Circuit Court of the United States for the sale of the mortgaged property, which resulted in the issue of executory process to the marshal of the district. At the sale made by that officer, the defendant became the purchaser of the completed division of the road, and the equipments and franchises appertaining to that division, with its cars, locomotives, machinery, utensils, and effects generally. The proceeds received not covering the entire indebtedness of the company, suits were instituted by several bondholders in the State courts for the amount due them, and judgments were recovered, under which the balance of the property of the company, including the franchises appertaining thereto, were sold by the sheriff of New Orleans, and were purchased by the defendant.

The mortgage of the company in terms covered its franchises, so far as they appertained to the completed portion or division of the road, from Algiers to Berwick's Bay; the sale of the marshal upon the executory process followed the terms of the mortgage in the description of the property sold; and the sheriff, upon the judgments of the State court, undertook to sell and convey with other property the franchises of the company appertaining to the road beyond Berwick's Bay to the Sabine River. The question presented is, whether, under the designation of franchises, the immunity from taxation upon its property possessed by the railroad company accompanied the property in its transfer to the defendant, or whether that immunity was a mere personal privilege of the company, and, therefore, not transferable to others. The Supreme Court of the State took the latter view, and held that the exemption did not attach to the property of the corporation so as to follow it into the hands of third parties. In this view we agree with the State court. The greater part of the property outside of the capital stock was liable to constant waste, deterioration, and destruction, and, according to the ordinary course of business, would be disposed of by the company as new works were required. It can hardly be supposed that the legislature intended that the exemption should follow the fixtures and vehicles of the company after they had passed out of its control, so that, wherever found, the power of taxation could not touch them; or, that workshops and warehouses ceasing to be the property of the company should carry to its subsequent possesors a privilege intended only for the benefit of the corporation. The language of the statute requires no such construction, and intendments will not be indulged to enlarge the operation of a clause restraining the exercise of a sovereign attribute of a State. As has been often said by this court, the whole community is interested in retaining the power of taxation undiminished, and has a right to insist that its abandonment shall not be presumed in any case where the deliberate purpose of the State to abandon it does not appear. Providence Bank v. Billings, 4 Pet. 561; The Delaware Railroad Tax, 18 Wall. 206. Here no such purpose appears. Here it is the capital stock of the company, and its works, fixtures, workshops, warehouses, vehicles of transportation and appurtenances, which the statute declares shall be exempt; evidently meaning that it is to the property of the company, so long as it remains such, that the exemption shall apply. This view is strengthened by the provision exempting the president, engineers, clerks, agents, and servants of the company from jury and military duty. No one would pretend that such exemption attended the individuals after they had ceased to be officers and servants of the company. The exemption of the property of the company from taxation, and the exemption of its officers and servants from jury and military duty, were both intended for the benefit of the company, and its benefit alone. In their personal character they are analogous to the exemptions from execution of certain property of debtors, made by laws of several of the States. Thus, in some States, a limited quantity of household and kitchen furniture, the tools of a mechanic, the tent and pick of a miner, the farming utensils of a husbandman, the instruments of a surgeon and dentist, and the law library of an attorney and counsellor,-are exempt from execution. In these and similar cases it has never been pretended that the exemption attached to the property continued when the ownership of the debtor ceased. The condition of the exemption in terms makes the exemption applicable to the property only so long as that belongs to the debtor. A similar condition attached by its terms to the exemption from taxation of the property of the railroad company here, and a like result must be deemed to have followed its change of ownership. In our judgment, the exemption ceased when the property of the company passed to the defendant.

Much confusion of thought has arisen in this case and in similar cases from attaching a vague and undefined meaning to the term 'franchises.' It is often used as synonymous with rights, privileges, and immunities, though of a personal and temporary character; so that, if any one of these exists, it is loosely termed a 'franchise,' and is supposed to pass upon a transfer of the franchises of the company. But the term must always be considered in connection with the corporation or property to which it is alleged to appertain. The franchises of a railroad corporation are rights or privileges which are essential to the operations of the corporation, and without which its road and works would be of little value; such as the franchise to run cars, to take tolls, to appropriate earth and gravel for the bed of its road, or water for its engines, and the like. They are positive rights or privileges, without the possession of which the road of the company could not be successfully worked. Immunity from taxation is not one of them. The former may be conveyed to a purchaser of the road as part of the property of the company; the latter is personal, and incapable of transfer without express statutory direction.

The cases cited by counsel are not in conflict with this view.

In New Jersey v. Wilson, 7 Cranch, 164, the land purchased by the State from the Indians was by the statute exempted from subsequent taxation without reference to its ownership. The privilege, said the court, though for the benefit of the Indians, was annexed by the terms which created it to the land itself, and not to the persons. In the case of Home of the Friendless v. Rouse, 8 Wall. 430, a statute of Missouri incorporating a charitable institution exempted its property from taxation; and the court held that the charter was a contract between the State and the corporators, that the property given for charitable uses specified in it should, so long as it was applied to those uses, be exempted from taxation. This decision accords with the view we have taken in this case of the operation of the exemption clause. The case of Wilmington Railroad v. Reid, 13 Wall. 264, only asserts the doctrine that it is competent for the legislature to exempt property from taxation. and that the exemption, when made in a charter of a corporation, constitutes a contract, the question there being whether subsequent legislation impaired the obligation of such contract.

In Trask v. Maguire, 18 Wall. 391, the act of Missouri, under which a sale of the St. Louis and Iron Mountain Railroad was made by commissioners of the State, provided that the purchasers should have all the rights, franchises, privileges, and immunities enjoyed by the defaulting company. The new company was, therefore, necessarily held to have acquired the immunity from taxation which the original company had possessed, if it were competent for the legislature at the time under the new constitution, to confer this privilege. It was decided, however, that the legislature was prohibited by the constitution from conferring the privilege, and that the law, passed under the ordinance adopted with the new constitution, providing for a sale of the franchises of a defaulting railroad company with its road, did not require immunity from taxation to be embraced within them; the language being construed to refer to such franchises as were essential to the operation of the road sold, and without which the ownership of the road would be comparatively valueless,-a view which accords with what we have said in this case.

Immunity of particular property from taxation is a privilege which may sometimes be transferred under that designation, as held in Humphrey v. Pegues, 16 Wall. 244. All that we now decide is, that such immunity is not itself a franchise of a railroad corporation which passes as such without other description to a purchaser of its property.

The views we have expressed render it unnecessary to consider whether the neglect for years of the company to prosecute its work, accompanied by the fact that it has become insolvent, and all its property has been disposed of at forced sales, does not warrant the conclusion that any further attempt to complete the road to the Sabine River has been abandoned.

Judgment affirmed.


text: Talk:Morgan v. Louisiana/Opinion of the Court

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


text:
Grant Collector v. Hartford and New Haven Railroad Company

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

This action was brought by the Hartford and New Haven Railroad Company against Henry A. Grant, collector of internal revenue for the first district of Connecticut, to recover the sum of $2,785.65 income tax, and $139.28 penalty, paid to him under protest in January, 1868. The controversy arose upon the question of the company's income for the two fiscal years ending Aug. 31, 1867. During that period they expended from their earnings $55,712.60, in constructing over the Farmington River at Windsor a new stone bridge, to be used in place of a wooden bridge which was deemed insecure; and they charged the amount to current expenses. The assessor of internal revenue for the district insisted that this sum should have been charged to account of construction, and was fairly to be regarded as 'profits used in construction,' within the meaning of the one hundred and twenty-second section of the act of June 30, 1864; and, therefore, he made a special assessment of the amount. The company having appealed to the commissioner of internal revenue without effect, this action was brought.

A jury having been waived, the cause was tried by the court, which found specially an agreed statement of facts. From this it appears that the amount charged to current expenses during each of the two years in question (including together the said sum of $55,712.60) was not greater than the proper ordinary current expenses and depreciation of the entire property; and that the company returned the entire balance of their gross earnings over and above said expenses, in the shape of dividends and surplus, and paid the regular tax thereon.

Judgment having been rendered in favor of the company, the collector sued out this writ of error.

Argued by Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Smith for the plaintiff in error.

The 'profit' of any business is the surplus remaining, after deducting from its gross receipts the necessary expenses of carrying it on, whether such surplus be retained in money or invested in addition to or improvement of the stock, or in other property.

The policy of Congress in the act which governs this case was to tax all gains and profits, whether divided or undivided. Collector v. Hubbard, 12 Wall. 17.

The stone bridge was an entirely new structure, a permanent improvement, for carrying on the business of the company. It was erected out of their profits, which were thus 'used in construction,' and not in repairs. Its total cost was properly assessed.

Mr. R. D. Hubbard for the defendant in error.

The profits of a railroad company cannot be claimed to be any thing more than the income remaining after satisfying a fair expense account.

The bridge was not intended to work an enlargement of the scope of the company's business. An unsafe structure was merely replaced by a better one.

The mere fact of its being more valuable adds nothing to the taxable or divisible profits of the company.

But the conceded facts render the preceding points wholly unnecessary.

The company charged no more for expenses and depreciation of their property in these two years than was 'proper to cover such expenses and such depreciation.'

The closest analogies to the question now under discussion have arisen under the construction of the English poor-law. By the Parochial Assessments Act (6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 96), rates for the relief of the poor in England and Wales are to be made upon an estimate of the net annual value of the several hereditaments rated thereunto,-that is to say, of the rent at which the same might reasonably be expected to let from year to year,-deducting therefrom the probable annual average cost of the repairs, insurance, and other expenses (if any) necessary to maintain them in a state to command such rent. Under this act the railway companies are chargeable. We submit that this law provides for no deduction which an honest railway management ought not to make before counting its profits. In getting at the net annual value of the several properties, the English courts hold, that a 'percentage on the gross receipts for annual depreciation of stock beyond ordinary annual repairs,' is to be made before coming at the taxable income (Reg. v. Grand Junction Ry. Co., 4 Ad. & E. N. S. 18); that another deduction is to be made, of 'an annual sum per mile, for the renewal and reproduction of the rails, sleepers,' &c. (id.; Rey. v. G. W. Ry. Co., 15 Q. B. 1085); and that the company is entitled to deduction of a fair percentage for depreciation, reproduction, &c., although the amount has not been actually expended (Reg. v. Lond., Bright., & So. C. Ry. Co., and several other cases following, reported in 15 Q. B. 313.)

MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court.


text: Talk:Grant Collector v. Hartford and New Haven Railroad Company


text:
Grant Collector v. Hartford and New Haven Railroad Company/Opinion of the Court

The company having returned the entire balance of their gross earnings over and above current expenses, in the shape of dividends and surplus, for the period in question, and paid the regular tax thereon, we do not see why this was not a full compliance with the law. The object of the law was to impose a tax on net income, or profits, only; and that cannot be regarded as net income, or profits, which is required and expended to keept the property up in its usual condition proper for operation. Such expenditure is properly classed with repairs, which are a part of the current expenses. If a railroad company should make a second track when they had but a single track before, this would be a betterment or permanent improvement, and, if paid out of the earnings, would be fairly characterized as 'profits used in construction.' The works of the company would have an additional value to what they had before, with an increased capacity for producing future profits. This kind of expenditure is what Congress meant to reach, when, in the one hundred and twenty-second section referred to, it imposed a tax not only on the dividends of every railroad, canal, and turnpike company, but also on 'all profits of such company carried to the account of any fund, or used for construction.'

The counsel for the government insists that this bridge was a betterment, because it was much more valuable than the old wooden bridge. But the assessor did not include the excess merely: he assessed the whole expenditure bestowed upon the new bridge, without making any allowance for the old one. His idea seems to have been, that all earnings used in new constructions are made taxable by the act, without reference to betterments, or to their being substituted for other constructions. Indeed, his assessment is not for 'profits used in construction,' but for 'earnings used in constructing new Windsor Bridge, $55,712.60.' In this view he was decidedly wrong. Earnings expended on a new structure may or may not be profits. Whether they are or not depends on other things to be taken into the account besides the mere fact of such expenditure. Had the assessment been merely for the increased value of the new bridge over the old one when in good repair, the case might have admitted of very different consideration. Judgment affirmed.


text: Talk:Grant Collector v. Hartford and New Haven Railroad Company/Opinion of the Court


text:
Page:Haiti- Her History and Her Detractors.djvu/375

Rh putting their rulers to death. Charles I was beheaded by the English, Louis XVI by the French, and Iturbide was condemned to be shot by the Mexicans. States, like individuals, commit errors. The errors of others are allowed to sink into oblivion, but not so with those of Haiti, which meet with implacable and lasting severity. Her most insignificant deeds are purposely exaggerated and misrepresented, with the sole aim of creating the impression that she is incapable of governing herself. People hasten to dignify mere riots or disturbances which elsewhere would not even have attracted the attention of the public, with the name of revolutions or insurrections. Some of the strikes in the United States, for instance, are more bloody and fraught with much more danger for the safety of the peaceful inhabitants of the disturbed locality, and cause many more victims, than many of the so-called revolutions in Haiti. The Washington Evening Star of May 3, 1905, printed the following concerning one of these strikes which occurred at Chicago: "There seems to be no power in the city to check the excesses and crimes of the mobs. The streets are not safe for the pedestrians. Traffic is crippled, trade is being ruined. Losses are mounting into millions and lives are being sacrificed. The processes of government are defied by the mob."

At Frankfort, Kentucky, the Governor-elect, Mr. Goebel, was murdered in the streets in broad daylight by his opponents, the disturbances which ensued lasting many weeks.

In Russia very grave events have taken place recently; for a while no life was safe and horrible massacres were of frequent occurrence.

All these things passed almost unnoticed; a few lines in the newspapers, and the cases were dismissed. But if, perchance, such events had occurred in Haiti, endless would have been the charges preferred against the character of the people; foreign Powers would have hastened to despatch men-of-war, under the fallacious pretext that the lives of their respective citizens were


text:
Hornor v. Henning

ERROR to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.

The plaintiff in error, who was plaintiff below, had judgment against him on demurrer to his declaration. The substance of the declaration is, that he is a creditor of the Washington City Savings-Bank; that the bank had incurred an indebtedness of $850,000 in excess of the amount of its capital stock, with the assent of the defendants, who were the trustees of said bank, by reason whereof a right of action had accrued to plaintiff to have and recover the amount of his debt,-to wit, $4,000.

The act of Congress of May 5, 1870 (16 Stat. 98), authorizes the formation of corporations for various purposes within the District of Columbia by the voluntary association of individuals, who shall pursue the directions of the statute on the subject. Sect. 4 of that act provides for manufacturing, agricultural, mining, and mechanical corporations, and contains several provisions on the subject of the liability of the stockholders and of the trustees who manage these corporations. One of these is, that 'if the indebtedness of any company organized under this act shall at any time exceed the amount of its capital stock, the trustees of such company assenting thereto shall be personally and individually liable for such excess to the creditors of the company.'

By the second section of an act of the same session, passed June 17, 1870 (16 Stat. 153), it was enacted that savings-banks might be organized under the provisions of sect. 4 of the act first mentioned, which contains the clause above recited; and it is on the liability of the trustees declared in this clause that plaintiff bases his cause of action.

Argued by Mr. F. P. Cuppy for the plaintiff in error.

1. The act of June 17, 1870, merely authorizes savings-banks to organize and do business under the provisions of sect. 4 of the act of May 5, 1870; therefore, in construing the act as applied to trustees of such banks, the rules of construction applicable to the liability of trustees of mercantile, mining, and other companies, under the first act, should be applied.

2. The right of action is separate and several in favor of each and every creditor.

3. The liability is a joint liability, to which all the trustees assenting to an excess of indebtedness over the amount of the capital stock may be subjected.

4. The statute does not designate or prescribe, expressly or by implication, the form of the remedy to which the creditor shall resort. He therefore has the right to elect that which may be appropriate, under the circumstances of his particular case.

5. In the case at bar, an action at law lies in favor of the plaintiff against the defendants, for the amount of his debt and interest. Debt is the proper form of such action. 3 Paige, 409, 415, 416; Bank of Poughkeepsie v. Ibbotson, 24 Wend. 473; Garrison v. Howe, 17 N. Y. 458; Simmons v. Spencer, 15 id. 548; Chandler v. Hoag, 2 Hun (N. Y.), 613; Union Iron Co. v. Pierce et al., 4 Biss. 327; Dozier v. Thornton, 19 Ga. 325; Bullard v. Bell, 1 Mas. 243; Culver v. National Bank of Chicago, 64 Ill. 530; Steele v. Dunne, 65 id. 298.

Mr. Walter D. Davidge for the defendants in error.

The liability claimed is purely statutory. It did not exist at common law. The liability of the trustees is solely for the excess of indebtedness, and to the creditors of the company, one of whom cannot maintain an action for his individual debt. The whole scheme of the provision is the creation of a fund for the benefit of all the creditors of the company. Sturgis v. Burton, 8 Ohio St. 215; Merchants' Bank v. Stevenson, 10 Gray, 232; Stevenson v. Merchants' Bank, 5 Allen, 398; Moore v. Reynolds, 109 Mass. 473; Harris v. The First Parish of Dorchester, 23 Pick. 112; Crease v. Babcock, 10 Met. 531; Morse on Banking, pp. 438, 439, and cases cited; Pollard v. Bailey, 20 Wall. 520.

The remedy being in equity, the demurrer was properly sustained.

MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Hornor v. Henning


text: Talk:Hornor v. Henning

title: Talk:Hornor v. Henning


text:
Hornor v. Henning/Opinion of the Court

The demurrer questions the right of a single creditor among many of the corporation to bring his separate action at law for his own debt, and recover a judgment for it against the trustees, though the allegations of his declaration be true.

If there exists an indebtedness of $850,000 in excess of the capital stock (which is alleged to be $50,000), it is clear that there must be other creditors than plaintiff; and as plaintiff's account, filed as part of the declaration, shows that he claims as a depositor in the bank, it is a reasonable inference that there are a great many other creditors, and that most of them are depositors of small sums. Under these circumstances, conceding the liability of the defendants, several questions press themselves on our attention as to the nature and extent of this liability and the mode of its enforcement. Taking the terms of the statute literally, the trustees are liable to the creditors as a body in the full sum of the excess (in this case $850,000), without regard to the amount due them collectively or individually, and though the corporation may be willing and able to pay every debt it owes as it falls due or is demanded. Nor does it matter whether the debts are in excess at the time the suit is brought or not, for 'if at any time' the indebtedness exceeds the capital stock, the assenting trustees are liable. Nor by the strict terms of the clause are the defendants liable to a single creditor, if there be more than one, but to all,-not to each creditor for the amount of his debt, but to all the creditors for the amount of the excess.

Yet in the face of this necessary result, if the literal construction be adopted, plaintiff in error maintains that the excess of indebtedness incurred above the capital is to be treated as a penalty, and that any creditor can sue for that penalty without regard to the rights of the others. If the action is to recover a penalty, the defendants can only be liable to one action and to one penalty; and the recovery by plaintiff, if he had the right to recover, could be pleaded in bar of any other action for the same penalty.

But it is not readily to be believed that Congress intended to make the trustees liable beyond the debts of the bank, which it failed or refused to pay; yet if the excess is a penalty, it would be no defence for the directors to plead that the bank was ready and willing, and had never refused, to pay when demand was made. In fact, while the bank, outside of its capital stock, may have had $1,000,000 in its vaults ready to pay, a single creditor, who had never demanded his money of the bank, could sue the trustees.

Nor can we believe that an act intended for the benefit of the creditors generally, when the bank proves insolvent, can be justly construed in such a manner that any one creditor can appropriate the whole or any part of this liability of the trustees to his own benefit, to the possible exclusion of all or of any part of the other creditors. But such may, and probably would, often be the result if any one creditor could sue alone, while there were others unsecured.

We are of opinion that the fair and reasonable construction of the act is, that the trustees who assent to an increase of the indebtedness of the corporation beyond its capital stock are to be held guilty of a violation of their trust; that Congress intended, that, so far as this excess of indebtedness over capital stock was necessary, they should make good the debts of the creditors who had been the sufferers by their breach of trust; that this liability constitutes a fund for the benefit of all the creditors who are entitled to share in it, in proportion to the amount of their debts, so far as may be necessary to pay these debts.

The remedy for this violation of duty as trustees is in its nature appropriate to a court of chancery. The powers and instrumentalities of that court enable it to ascertain the excess of the indebtedness over the capital stock, the amount of this which each trustee may have assented to, and the extent to which the funds of the corporation may be resorted to for the payment of the debts; also, the number and names of the creditors, the amount of their several debts, to determine the sum to be recovered of the trustees, and apportioned among the creditors,-in a manner which the trial by jury and the rigid rules of common-law proceedings render impossible.

This course avoids the injustice of many suits against defendants for the same liability, and the greater injustice of permitting one creditor to absorb all, or a very unequal portion, of the sum for which the trustees are liable; and it adjusts the rights of all concerned on the equitable principles which lie at the foundation of the statute.

Counsel for plaintiff cites a number of adjudged cases, mostly from the courts of New York, in which it is held that an action at law may be maintained against an individual stockholder in favor of an individual creditor under the statute of that State, that makes the stockholder liable to the amount of his stock when the corporation is insolvent. But there the liability of the stockholder is several, and is limited to the amount of his stock, a fixed sum easily ascertained. It is held in those courts, however, as stated in the Bank of Poughkeepise v. Ibbotson, 24 Wend. 473, that chancery has a concurrent jurisdiction; and in the case of Van Hook v. Whitlock, 3 Paige, Ch. 409, it was said that the remedy at law is a very imperfect one.

Without deciding whether we would follow those decisions in a similar case arising in this District, it is sufficient to say, that there is an obvious distinction between the liability of stockholders to the amount of their stock, which is a part of the obligation assumed when the stock is taken and which is an exact sum, ascertainable by the number of shares owned by the shareholder, and the case of the managing trustees, jointly liable for a violation of their trust to all the creditors of the corporation who may be injured thereby.

In the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, under the identical form of words which we are construing in the present case, it has been repeatedly decided that the only remedy is a suit in equity, in which all the creditors are parties; and that even in equity one creditor cannot sue alone, but must either join the other creditors, or bring his suit on behalf of himself and all the others. And while the case is considered in reference to remedies afforded by the statute, it is placed on the solid ground, that the fund, by the statute, consists of the excess of all debts over the capital, and that there are various parties having several and unequal claims against the fund, which exceed it in amount. A demurrer to the action at law was sustained on these grounds in the Merchants' Bank of Newburyport v. Stevenson and Others, 10 Gray, 232. See also Crease v. Babcock, 19 Met. 501; 5 Allen, 398. The same principle is held by this court in the recent case of Pollard v. Bailey, 20 Wall. 520, which, we think, disposes of the one before us.

Judgment affirmed.

title: Hornor v. Henning/Opinion of the Court


text: Talk:Hornor v. Henning/Opinion of the Court


text:
Yznaga Del Valle v. Harrison

MOTION to dismiss a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana.

Mr. Edward Janin for the defendants in error, in support of the motion.

Mr. Thomas J. Durant and Mr. C. W. Hornor for the plaintiff in error, in opposition thereto.

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

title: Yznaga Del Valle v. Harrison


text:
User:AdamBMorgan/Books/Tarzan the Terrible

ERB's Seventh Tarzan Novel

 * Chapter 1: The Pithecanthropus
 * Chapter 2: "To the Death!"
 * Chapter 3: Pan-at-lee
 * Chapter 4: Tarzan-jad-guru
 * Chapter 5: In the Kor-ul-gryf
 * Chapter 6: The Tor-o-don
 * Chapter 7: Jungle Craft
 * Chapter 8: A-lur
 * Chapter 9: Blood-Stained Altars
 * Chapter 10: The Forbidden Garden
 * Chapter 11: The Sentence of Death
 * Chapter 12: The Giant Stranger
 * Chapter 13: The Masquerader
 * Chapter 14: The Temple of the Gryf
 * Chapter 15: "The King Is Dead!"
 * Chapter 16: The Secret Way
 * Chapter 17: By Jad-bal-lul
 * Chapter 18: The Lion Pit of Tu-lur
 * Chapter 19: Diana of the Jungle
 * Chapter 20: Silently in the Night
 * Chapter 21: The Maniac
 * Chapter 22: A Journey on a Gryf
 * Chapter 23: Taken Alive
 * Chapter 24: The Messenger of Death
 * Chapter 25: Home
 * Glossary


text:
User:AdamBMorgan/Books/Jungle Tales of Tarzan

ERB's Eighth Tarzan Novel

 * Chapter 1: Tarzan's First Love
 * Chapter 2: The Capture of Tarzan
 * Chapter 3: The Fight for the Balu
 * Chapter 4: The God of Tarzan
 * Chapter 5: Tarzan and the Black Boy
 * Chapter 6: The Witch-Doctor Seeks Vengeance
 * Chapter 7: The End of Bukawai
 * Chapter 8: The Lion
 * Chapter 9: The Nightmare
 * Chapter 10: The Battle for Teeka
 * Chapter 11: A Jungle Joke
 * Chapter 12: Tarzan Rescues the Moon


text: Talk:Yznaga Del Valle v. Harrison

title: Talk:Yznaga Del Valle v. Harrison


text:
Page:A lover's tale (Tennyson, 1879).djvu/59

Rh

that time forth I would not see her more; But many weary moons I lived alone— Alone, and in the heart of the great forest. Sometimes upon the hills beside the sea All day I watch'd the floating isles of shade, And sometimes on the shore, upon the sands Insensibly I drew her name, until The meaning of the letters shot into My brain; anon the wanton billow wash'd Them over, till they faded like my love. The hollow caverns heard me—the black brooks Of the midforest heard me—the soft winds, Laden with thistledown and seeds of flowers,


text:
Yznaga Del Valle v. Harrison/Opinion of the Court

The judgment in this case is for less than $5,000, and was given April 9, 1875. A motion for new trial, entered and filed April 13, was overruled, after argument, May 8. The judgment as given was signed by the judge May 10, 1875.

A motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction is now made, because the matter in dispute is less than $5,000. This writ of error was issued under sect. 691 of the Revised Statutes, as amended by the act of Feb. 16, 1875 (18 Stat. 316), which provides for the re-examination in this court of all final judgments of the circuit courts rendered previous to May 1, 1875, where the matter in dispute exceeds the sum or value of $2,000, and of such as were rendered after that date where it exceeds $5,000. The only question presented by this motion is whether the judgment of the Circuit Court was 'rendered' before or after May 1, 1875. If before, we have jurisdiction; if after, we have not.

By the Code of Practice of Louisiana, 'the judge must sign all definitive or final judgments rendered by him; but he shall not do so until three judicial days have elapsed, to be computed from the day when such judgments were given.' Art. 545, Code 1870; art. 546 of former Code. This, by the operation of sect. 914 of the Revised Statutes (which is a reproduction of sect. 6 of 'An Act to further the administration of justice,' passed June 1, 1872, 17 Stat. 197), is now by law a rule of practice for the courts of the United States within that State; and it seems, that, as early as 1828, the District Court of the United States in Louisiana had adopted it as a rule of that court. Such being the case, this court held, in Life and Fire Insurance Company of New York v. Wilson's Heirs, 8 Pet. 303, decided in 1834, that 'the judgment, without the signature of the judge, cannot be enforced. It is not a final judgment on which a writ of error may issue for its reversal. Without the action of the judge, the plaintiffs can take no step. . . . They can neither issue execution on the judgment, nor reverse the proceedings by writ of error.' This is in accordance with the settled practice in Louisiana, and is decisive of this case. Stark v. Burke, 9 La. Ann. 345; Sprigg v. Wells, 5 Mart. N. S. 105; Ex parte Nicholass, 4 Rob. 53; ''Mech. & Tr. Bank N. O. v. Walter'', 7 id. 451; Succession of Arbridge, 1 La. Ann. 207; McWillie v. Perkins, 20 id. 169. As only final judgments can be re-examined here upon writs of error, the judgment to be 'rendered,' which the statute refers to, must be the final judgment. That judgment is not rendered in Louisiana until it is signed by the judge. In other States, the rule in this respect may be different; and in Silsby v. Foote, 20 How. 295, we said, 'The time to be taken as when the judgment or decree may be said to be rendered or passed may admit of some latitude, and may depend somewhat upon the usage and practice of the particular court.' But this being a judgment in Louisiana, and not having been signed until after May 1, was not rendered, according to the practice in that State, before that date; and consequently the writ must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.


text: Talk:Yznaga Del Valle v. Harrison/Opinion of the Court


text:
User:AdamBMorgan/Books/Tarzan the Untamed

ERB's Sixth Tarzan Novel

 * Chapter 1: Murder and Pillage
 * Chapter 2: The Lion's Cave
 * Chapter 3: In the German Lines
 * Chapter 4: When the Lion Fed
 * Chapter 5: The Golden Locket
 * Chapter 6: Vengeance and Mercy
 * Chapter 7: When Blood Told
 * Chapter 8: Tarzan and the Great Apes
 * Chapter 9: Dropped from the Sky
 * Chapter 10: In the Hands of Savages
 * Chapter 11: Finding the Airplane
 * Chapter 12: The Black Flier
 * Chapter 13: Usanga's Reward
 * Chapter 14: The Black Lion
 * Chapter 15: Mysterious Footprints
 * Chapter 16: The Night Attack
 * Chapter 17: The Walled City
 * Chapter 18: Among the Maniacs
 * Chapter 19: The Queen's Story
 * Chapter 20: Came Tarzan
 * Chapter 21: In the Alcove
 * Chapter 22: Out of the Niche
 * Chapter 23: The Flight from Xuja
 * Chapter 24: The Tommies


text:
Shaw v. United States

APPEAL from the Court of Claims.

The court below found the facts as follows:--

That on the seventeenth day of September, 1863, the steamboat 'Robert Campbell, Jr.,' of which the claimant was and continued to be the sole owner, when lying at the wharf in the port of St. Louis, Mo., fully manned, equipped, and furnished for business on the Mississippi River, was impressed into the military service of the United States by Captain Charles Parsons, assistant-quartermaster of the United States army, for especial duty between Memphis and Vicksburg, loaded with army stores and troops, and ordered by said Parsons to proceed down the Mississippi River to Memphis, Tenn., and there report to Captain J. V. Lewis, assistant-quartermaster. The orders stated the terms on which the boat was employed. The boat left St. Louis on said service about the 25th of that month, officered and manned by officers and men employed by the claimant.

While in the said service of the government she was, on the 28th of September, 1863, consumed by fire, and became a total loss to the claimant, without any fault or negligence on his part, or that of her officers or crew.

In October, 1863, the account of the United States with said boat, for her use and service as a transport from Sept. 17 to Sept. 28, was allowed and paid by Brigadier-General Robert Allen, quartermaster United States army.

In February, 1864, the claimant submitted to the third auditor of the treasury his claim for $70,000 against the United States, for the value of said boat at the time she was taken into the service of the government.

At the same time, he claimed a balance of $859.91, as due him on account of stores lost with the boat when she was consumed, and which he averred had been furnished by the officers of the boat for the subsistence of the crew.

At the time of her loss she was worth $70,000, and was insured for $25,000, by policies for $5,000, in each of the following companies; namely, the Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company, the Globe Mutual Insurance Company, the United States Insurance Company, the Eureka Insurance Company, and the Phoenix Insurance Company. In each policy, except that of the Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company, the boat was valued at $38,000; and in all of said policies there was a limitation of $30,000, as the total amount which was allowed to be insured on the boat.

In the policies issued by the Atlantic Mutual and United States companies, the claimant was insured; but the policies stipulated that the loss, if any, should be paid to Robert Campbell; and the losses under those policies-viz., $5,000 under each-were paid to said Campbell.

In the policy issued by the Eureka the claimant was insured; but the policy stipulated that the loss, if any, should be paid to Robert Campbell & Co.; and the loss was so paid.

In the Phoenix and Globe policies the claimant was insured, and the losses thereunder were paid to him.

On the 25th of May, 1864, the third auditor rendered the following award in favor of the claimant:--

Award No. 32.-Second Section of the Act of 3d March, 1849.

'TREASURY DEPARTMENT,

'THIRD AUDITOR'S OFFICE, May 25, 1864.

'In pursuance of an act of Congress approved 3d of March, 1849, entitled 'An Act to provide for the payment of horses and other property lost or destroyed in the military service of the United States,' as amended and construed by the fifth section of the act of March 3, 1863, it is adjudged by me, that there is due from the United States to John S. Shaw, for the steamboat 'Robert Campbell, Jr.,' of St. Louis, Mo., burned on the Mississippi River, near Milliken's Bend, on the twenty-eighth day of September, 1863, while in the military service of the United States, under impressment, the sum of fifty-seven thousand dollars ($57,000), less the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars received by him as insurance on the same, leaving payable by the United States the sum of thirty-two thousand dollars ($32,000).

'To be paid to John S. Shaw, St. Louis, Mo.

'R. J. ATKINSON, Third Auditor.'

On the 9th of June, 1864, the amount of said award was paid to the claimant.

In 1869, the claimant made an application to the third auditor to review the award, and allow the further sum of $13,859.90; which that officer refused to do: and his decision in that regard was concurred in by the second comptroller. That sum was, in the application, made up of the above-mentioned balance, claimed as due him on account of stores lost with the boat when she was consumed; and of $13,000, on account of the value of the boat,-which latter claim was made by estimating the boat's value at $70,000, and allowing thereon $25,000 insurance money paid the claimant, and $32,000 paid him by the government as aforesaid, leaving $13,000 additional on the value claimed to be due to him.

The claimant's amended petition, praying for a recovery of the said sum of $25,000, for the use and benefit of said insurance companies, was, with the leave of the court, filed Aug. 26, 1873.

The court found as conclusions of law,--

1. That, on the facts therein, the 'Robert Campbell, Jr.,' when destroyed by fire, was employed by the petitioner in the performance of a contract of affreightment, then subsisting between him and the United States; and they are not liable for her value.

2. That the claim of the petitioner against the United States, submitted by him to the third auditor, was not within the jurisdiction or authority of said officer, under the statute of 3d March, 1849; and his action thereon imposed no liability on the United States, and none has been assumed by them.

Judgment was rendered accordingly; and the claimant appealed to this court.

Argued by Mr. Joseph Casey for the appellant.

The steamboat was in the military service of the United States by 'impressment,' and, having been destroyed by inevitable accident, without fault or neglect of the owner, the case is clearly within the acts of March 3, 1849, and March 3, 1863.

The fact of impressment and use creates an obligation to pay, from which an implied contract arises. United States v. Russell, 13 Wall. 623.

Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Smith for the appellee.

The claimant having remained in the possession, navigation, and command of his vessel, the arrangement was, in contemplation of law, a mere affreightment, sounding in a contract, and not a demise. Reed v. United States, 11 Wall. 600; United States v. Russell, 13 id. 623.

Being a contractor for the use of his vessel as a transport, neither the claimant nor his property was 'in the military service of the United States,' within the meaning of the acts of March 3, 1849 (9 Stat. 415), and March 3, 1863 (12 id. 743). Guttman's Case, 9 Ct. of Cl. 60.

MR. JUSTICE FIELD delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Shaw v. United States


text: Talk:Shaw v. United States

title: Talk:Shaw v. United States


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

If we could import into the findings of the court the facts stated in its opinion and in the brief of appellant's counsel, this case would be presented for our consideration with much greater completeness than at present. It would then clearly appear, that what is termed an impressment of the vessel of the claimant into the military service of the United States was only a notice to its captain from the assistant-quartermaster at St. Louis that the government would require its service for a trip to Memphis, Vicksburg, and other points, accompanied with a statement of the per diem compensation which would be allowed for its use, and for the subsistence of the men in addition to their wages, and fuel for the vessel; to which notice and service no objection was made by the captain or the claimant. It would also appear, that the claimant entered upon the service with alacrity, and that, in conformity with the terms designated as compensation, his account was rendered to the United States, and paid. Under these circumstances, the transaction could only be treated as a voluntary arrangement, notwithstanding the peremptory tone on the part of the assistant quartermaster-general, with which the negotiation with the captain was opened.

In Reed v. United States, reported in the 11th of Wallace, the same military officer at St. Louis, the assistant-quartermaster, in June, 1865, applied to the owners of another steamer, to transport supplies from that port to Fort Berthold, on the Missouri; but they declined the service, on account of the lateness of the season. He then ordered them to prepare for the trip, informing them, that, in case of refusal, the vessel would be impressed. They protested; but, under the orders given, put the boat in readiness, received the cargo, and performed the service required. With the order to prepare for the trip, the assistant-quartermaster, as in this case, fixed the per diem compensation for the use of the vessel, which appears to have been satisfactory to the owners; for it was received by them without objection. Upon this state of facts the court held, that, though the owners originally objected to the service, they in fact rendered it as matter of contract upon the compensation fixed by the assistant-quartermaster; and that the vessel having grounded on its return trip, and been destroyed whilst thus grounded by an ice freshet, no liability for its value attached to the United States, under the second section of the act of 1849 (9 Stat. 414), or the fifth section of the amendatory act of 1863 (12 id. 743). The fact that the steamer remained, in performing the trip required, under the control and management of its owners, was considered as conclusive that it was not in the service of the United States, within the meaning of those acts; and that a vessel could only be regarded as in such service when let to the government, and the owners had parted with its possession, command, and management. So long as the owners retained the possession, command, and management of the steamer, the United States were only charterers of the same upon a contract of affreightment, and liable as such, and were not clothed with the character or responsibility of ownership. And it was also held, that the adjudication of the third auditor in allowing, in supposed conformity with the acts mentioned, for the value of the vessel lost, could not have any influence upon the decision of the court.

The facts stated in the opinion of the Court of Claims, and by the appellant's counsel in his brief, bring the present case fully within the reasoning and authority of Reed v. United States. And although the findings in the record are defective in not stating the particulars of the contract, and it is found that the steamer was impressed into the military service, yet it distinctly appears that the terms upon which the vessel would be employed were stated at the time by the assistant-quartermaster, and that the vessel, whilst performing its service, was manned by officers and men engaged by the claimant,-that is, that the vessel was in his possession and under his command and management, and not in the possession or under the command and management of the United States; and that his account with the government for its use and service as a transport, until its destruction by fire, was allowed and paid. We must therefore hold, as was held in the case cited, that whatever the force or coercion may have been which attended the original impressment, as it is termed, the transaction ultimately ended in a contract of affreightment, upon the terms stated by the assistant-quartermaster. As charterers of the vessel under such a contract, the United States were not liable to the claimant for its loss, and, of course, could not be to the insurance companies which were subrogated to his rights. Macardier v. The Chesapeake Insurance Co., 8 Cranch, 39; The Schooner Volunteer, 1 Sumn. 551; The Brig Spartan, 1 Ware, 153; Donohue v. Kittel, 1 Cliff. 138.

Judgment affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE MILLER dissented.

MR. JUSTICE STRONG did not take part in the decision.


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


text:
User:AdamBMorgan/Books/Tarzan and the Jewels of Opar

ERB's Fifth Tarzan Novel

 * Chapter 1
 * Chapter 2
 * Chapter 3
 * Chapter 4
 * Chapter 5
 * Chapter 6
 * Chapter 7
 * Chapter 8
 * Chapter 9
 * Chapter 10
 * Chapter 11
 * Chapter 12
 * Chapter 13
 * Chapter 14
 * Chapter 15
 * Chapter 16
 * Chapter 17
 * Chapter 18
 * Chapter 19
 * Chapter 20
 * Chapter 21
 * Chapter 22
 * Chapter 23
 * Chapter 24


text:
Schacker v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company

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

Submitted on printed arguments by Mr. W. T. Burgess for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. George O. Ide for the defendant in error.

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


text:
Page:Haiti- Her History and Her Detractors.djvu/376

 340 in jeopardy. And yet since the much to be regretted reprisals which followed the war of independence, the most hitter foes and detractors of the Haitians have never been able to quote a single case of foreigners having been killed during the political disturbances which have from time to time shaken the country. Nowhere do foreigners find greater protection and security than that which is granted by Haiti. There are instances in the United States when Italians and Austrians have been put to death by an infuriated mob. The closest examination of the history of Haiti and the events of daily occurrence will not reveal one instance of foreigners having been killed either by reason of their nationality, the color of their skins, of on account of the rivalry more or less great between them and the natives.

I do not mean to infer that Haiti has attained to perfection. Like other nations, she also has her imperfections. I am only trying, and I cannot repeat it too often, to lay before my readers the unjust treatment she has up to the present time met with. She does not deserve the needless calumnies with which she is overwhelmed.

Everything is made a pretext for turning Haiti into ridicule; even the number of her Constitutions brought forward as a subject of derision; whilst it appears quite natural that France, for instance, should have enacted the following twelve Constitutions from 1791 to 1875: the Constitutions of 1791, of the year I (1793), of the year III (1795), of the year VIII (1800) modified in 1802, of the year X (1804); the Charter of 1814; the Additional Article of 1815; the Constitutions of 1830, of 1848, of 1852; the imperial Constitution of 1852; the Constitution of 1875 modified in 1884.

From 1804 to 1889 Haiti was under the successive rule of the Constitutions of 1805, 1806, 1816, 1843, 1846, 1849, 1867, 1874, 1879, and 1889. Most of these Constitutions proceeded from two prototypes the Constitution of 1816, which organized a strong Executive Power, and the liberal Constitution of 1843; all others were


text: Talk:Schacker v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company


text:
Page:A short history of social life in England.djvu/296

276 "I affirm," says Defoe, "of my own knowledge, that when I have wanted a man for labouring work and offer 9s, a week to strolling fellows at my door, they have frequently told me to my face that they could get more a-begging"—a sentence which might have been written to-day, with the substitution of a higher wage. His explanation rings only too true. "Where an Englishman earns his 20s. a week and but just lives, as we call it, a Dutchman grows rich and leaves his children in very good condition. We are the most lazy, indigent nation in the world. There is nothing more frequent than for an Englishman to work till he has got his pockets full of money and then go and be idle, or perhaps drunk, till it is all gone and perhaps himself in debt, and … he'll tell you honestly he will drink as long as it lasts and then go and work for more." Above a thousand families, he further asserts, known to himself, go systematically in rags, their children wanting for bread, whose fathers can earn 15s. to 20s. a week, but will not work. The first workhouses in England were practically houses of correction, founded for the purpose of employing the unemployed; but in this capacity they signally failed, and we are still searching


text:
Schacker v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company/Opinion of the Court

On opening this record, we find that the action below was assumpsit upon a policy of insurance for $1,400. There are two counts in the declaration, but they are both upon the same cause of action; and although the damages, both in the writ and declaration, and laid at $3,000, it is apparent from the whole record that there could not be a recovery in any event for more than $1,400 and interest from July 14, 1873.

Our jurisdiction, when this writ issued, was limited in cases of this character to those in which the 'matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds the sum or value of $2,000.' Rev. Stat., sect. 692. Now, in the same class of cases, where a judgment or decree has been rendered since May 1, 1875, the amount must be $5,000. 18 Stat. 316.

In Lee v. Watson, 1 Wall. 337, we held, that 'in an action upon a money demand, where the general issue is pleaded, the matter in dispute is the debt claimed, and its amount, as stated in the body of the declaration, and not merely the damages alleged or the prayer for judgment at its conclusion must be considered in determining whether this court can take jurisdiction.' Applying this rule, which is clearly right, to the present case, it is ordered that the writ of error be

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.


text: Talk:Schacker v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company/Opinion of the Court


text:
User:AdamBMorgan/Books/The Son of Tarzan

ERB's Fourth Tarzan Novel

 * Chapter 1
 * Chapter 2
 * Chapter 3
 * Chapter 4
 * Chapter 5
 * Chapter 6
 * Chapter 7
 * Chapter 8
 * Chapter 9
 * Chapter 10
 * Chapter 11
 * Chapter 12
 * Chapter 13
 * Chapter 14
 * Chapter 15
 * Chapter 16
 * Chapter 17
 * Chapter 18
 * Chapter 19
 * Chapter 20
 * Chapter 21
 * Chapter 22
 * Chapter 23
 * Chapter 24
 * Chapter 25
 * Chapter 26
 * Chapter 27


text:
Garfielde v. United States

APPEAL from the Court of Claims.

In addition to the facts set forth in the opinion of the court, the court below found that the appellant's proposal was as follows:--

'The undersigned, Selucius Garfielde, whose post-office address is Port Townsend, County of Jefferson, Territory of Washington, proposes to convey the mails of the United States from July 1, 1874, to June 30, 1878, on route No. 43,132, between Port Townsend, and Sitka, Alaska, under the advertisement of the Postmaster-General, dated Oct. 1, 1873, in safe and suitable steamboats, 'with celerity, certainty, and security' (law of June 8, 1872), for the annual sum of $26,000.

'This proposal is made with full knowledge of the distance of the route, the weight of the mail to be carried, and all other particulars in reference to the route and service; and also after careful examination of the laws and instructions attached to advertisement of mail service.

'Dated, Port Townsend, W. T., Jan. 8, 1874.

'SELUCIUS GARFIELDE, Bidder.'

He made no proposal under the first part of the advertisement for carrying the mail between Portland, Oregon, by Port Townsend, W. T., and San Juan to Sitka, Alaska.

In March, 1874, the following notice of acceptance was sent to said Garfielde:--

'U.S. POST-OFFICE DEPARTMENT,

'OFFICE OF THE SECOND ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL,

'WASHINGTON, D. C., March 2, 1874.

'SIR,-The Postmaster-General has accepted your proposal, under advertisement of Oct. 1, 1873, for conveying the United States mail, from July 1, 1874, to June 30, 1878, on (Washington Territory) route No. 43,132, between Port Townsend and Sitka, Alaska, at $26,000 a year, 'with celerity, certainty, and security.'

'Contracts will be sent in due time to the postmaster at your place of residence, which you must execute and return to the department by the first day of June; otherwise you will be considered a failing bidder, and the service will be relet at your expense.

'You will request the postmaster at the beginning and end of the route to inform this office when you make the first trip.

'Respectfully, &c.,

J. L. ROUTT,

'Second Assistant Postmaster-General.

'MR. SELUCIUS GARFIELDE,

'PORT TOWNSEND, JEFFERSON CO., W. T.

'Recorded and sent March __, 1874.'

And on the eighteenth day of April, 1874, Garfield was informed by telegram that his 'proposal' was suspended; and on the 30th of May, 1874, a contract was entered into between the Post-Office Department and one Otis for carrying the mails from Portland by Port Townsend and San Juan, to Sitka and back, at $34,800 per annum.

The Court of Claims dismissed the petition, whereupon Garfielde appealed here.

Mr. Ebon C. Ingersoll and Mr. B. F. Rice for the appellant.

Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Smith, contra.

MR. JUSTICE HUNT delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Garfielde v. United States


text: Talk:Garfielde v. United States

title: Talk:Garfielde v. United States


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

The Court of Claims holds that the proposal on the part of Garfielde, and the acceptance of the proposal by the department, created a contract of the same force and effect as if a formal contract had been written out and signed by the parties. Many authorities are cited to sustain the proposition. We believe it to be sound, and that it should be so held in the present case.

That court held that the contract alleged by the petitioner was invalid, for the reason that the Postmaster-General exceeded his authority in making it without the previous publication required by the act of Congress of June 8, 1872. 17 Stat. 313, sect. 243.

That act required, 'that, before making any contract for carrying the mail,. . . the Postmaster-General shall give public notice. . . such notice shall describe the route, the time at which the mail is to be made up, the time at which it is to be delivered, and the frequency of the service.'

Among the instructions issued by the authority and official sanction of the Postmaster-General are the following, which were referred to and proved or admitted by the parties at the trial:--

'SPECIAL NOTICE.-All instructions and regulations promulgated by the Postmaster-General, conformably to law, for the guidance of persons employed by the department, are entitled to the same respect and obedience as acts of Congress. . ..

'SECT. 263. The Postmaster-General may order an increase or extension of service on a route, by allowing therefor a pro rata increase on the contract pay. He may change schedules of departures and arrivals in all cases, and particularly to make them conform to connections with railroads, without increase of pay, provided the running-time be not abridged. He may also order an increase of speed, allowing, within the restrictions of the law, a pro rata increase of pay for the additional stock or carriers, if any. The contractor may, however, in case of increase of speed, relinquish the contract, by giving prompt notice to the department that he prefers doing to carrying the order into effect. The Postmaster-General may also discontinue or curtail the service, in whole or in part, in order to place on the route a greater degree of service, or whenever the public interests, in his judgment, shall require such discontinuance or curtailment for any other cause; he allowing, as a full indemnity to the contractor, one month's extra pay on the amount of service dispensed with, and a pro rata compensation for the amount of service retained and continued.'

'SECT. 267. Bidders should first propose for service strictly according to the advertisement, and then, if they desire, separately for different service; and, if the regular bid be the lowest offered for the advertised service, the other proposition may be considered.'

'SECT. 275. The law provides that contracts for the transportation of the mail shall be awarded to the lowest bidder tendering sufficient guaranties for faithful performance, without other reference to the mode of such transportation than may be necessary to provide for the due celerity, certainty, and security thereof.'

The notice in the present case called for proposals for carrying the mails on route No. 43,132, from Portland, Oregon, to Sitka, Alaska. The distance was stated to be fourteen hundred miles. The duty was required to be performed each way once in each month, in safe and suitable steamboats, by the way of Port Townsend and San Juan. The time of departure and arrival at each terminus was specified, and ten days was allowed for the passage. It was then added, 'Proposals invited to begin at Port Townsend (W. T.), five hundred miles less.'

We are of the opinion that this was a sufficient notice, under sect. 243, supra, that proposals were desired for carrying the mail from Port Townsend to Sitka. The rigorous and strained construction which would defeat it, would defeat the reasonable intent of the statute. Each terminus was given,-to wit, Port Townsend and Sitka,-as was the route to be followed,-to wit, by way of San Juan,-and the length of time to be occupied,-to wit, ten days for the whole distance, of which this distance bore the proportion of nine to fourteen,-and the time of making up and delivery, upon the same principle. The steamer should leave Portland on the first day of every month; of the ten days allowed for the passage to Sitka, five-fourteenths would be occupied in reaching Port Townsend, and nine-fourteenths would be allowed for the residue. The whole time and the whole number of miles being given, it was a simple arithmetical question of when the steamer would leave Port Townsend, and when, on its return, it would reach that port.

The object of the statute was to secure notice of the intended post-routes, of the service required, and the manner of its performance, that bidders might compete, that favoritism should be prevented, that efficiency and economy in the service should be obtained. It was not required that papers of this character should be drawn, as if they were subject to the criticism or dis section of a demurrer in a court of law.

Accordingly, it appears that this notice for the abridged distance is in conformity to the usages of the Post-Office Department for many years past, proof having been made of nine hundred similar advertisements published by the Postmaster-General. Long practice and constant usage favor the construction we have given to these proposals.

Great aid is also given by the two hundred and sixty-third regulation, above recited. It is there provided, that the Postmaster-General may, in his discretion, change the schedule of departures and arrivals, without increase of pay, if the running time be not abridged. Under this authority, he had the power to name the precise days of the month on which the steamer of Garfielde, the claimant, should leave Port Townsend or Sitka, or both of these places. The supposed defects in the advertisement are capable of a remedy, if needed, under this authority.

The damages are regulated by the same section. The claimant states, in his proposal, that he has full knowledge of the laws and regulations of the department on the subject of mail transportation. He no doubt knew that this regulation provided that the Postmaster-General could discontinue entirely the service for which he proposed, whenever in his judgment the public interests required it, and that for such discontinuance one month's pay was to be deemed a full indemnity to the contractor. There was reserved to the Postmaster-General the power to annul the contract when his judgment advised that it should be done, and the compensation to the contractor was specified. An indemnity agreed upon as the amount to be paid for cancelling a contract, must, we think, afford the measure of damages for illegally refusing to award it.

Judgment reversed, and cause remitted, that a judgment may be rendered in favor of the appellant for a sum equal to one month's compensation under the proposal made by him and accepted by the Postmaster-General.


text:
Page:Haiti- Her History and Her Detractors.djvu/377

Rh modifications or adaptations which represented the reforms adopted or the progress realized. The people on each occasion issued the whole Constitution for greater convenience, naming it after the year in which the change was made; and this has given the impression that each Constitution was an entirely new one, differing essentially from all those which had previously been in force. But even if Haiti, like France, had enacted almost twelve Constitutions during the first eighty-four years of her existence, this should not be brought forward as an evidence of her incapacity for self-government, which her maligners lead others into believing. These changes would rather indicate a strong desire of bettering such institutions as were found to be inadequate or unsuitable to actual circumstances. It is surely pardonable in so young a nation as Haiti not to have succeeded from the very first in establishing and maintaining the best form of government, when older nations, like Russia for example, are still seeking after a proper political organization.


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


text:
Whiteside v. United States

APPEAL from the Court of Claims.

This was a suit brought Dec. 21, 1871, against the United States, to recover $17,356, expended by claimants in hauling, baling, and ginning cotton in Arkansas, in 1865, under a contract with A. B. Miller, assistant special agent of the treasury, made at Camden, Ark., dated Nov. 10, 1865, by which they agreed to proceed to La Fayette County, procure evidence of the right of the United States to cotton there, put the same into shipping order, and transport it to Camden, for a half-interest in all cotton condemned. In all cases of a release after a seizure, upon sufficient evidence, they were to be repaid 'all expenses of transportation, repairing,' &c. In November and December, 1865, they delivered to Miller three lots of cotton, aggregating five hundred and twenty-two bales. Two of these lots, comprising four hundred and fifty-one bales, were, Jan. 9, 1866, taken from the warehouse at Camden, by General May, commanding the district, and turned over to one Harvey, the alleged owner of them. The claimants had hauled the cotton nearly eighty miles, rebaled it, &c., and ginned a part, for which they were never paid. Two undated vouchers, certified by Miller and approved by O. H. Burbridge, supervising special agent of the treasury, were given the claimants, showing the total amount by them thus expended to be $17,356. Neither was presented to the Treasury Department for payment. On the 28th of March, 1866, Burbridge made the following indorsement on the contract: 'Subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, the within contract is approved, so far as it conforms to the regulations of the Treasury Department for paying one-fourth of the cotton condemned, and it is recommended that one-half be allowed.' The defendant pleaded the general denial and the Statute of Limitations. The Court of Claims, upon the facts found, ruled as matter of law,--

'1. That the contract relied on by the claimant, not being approved by the supervising special agent of the treasury, was incomplete, and, no benefit having resulted to the government from its alleged fulfilment, there is no legal or equitable ground for recovery.

'2. That, if the contract was valid, the loss to the claimants was caused by the illegal seizure of General May, and for that the government is not liable.'

The petition of the claimants was dismissed, and they brought the case here.

Argued by Mr. Joseph Casey for the appellants, who cited Salomon v. United States, 19 Wall. 17; United States v. Gill, 20 id. 517; Reeside v. United States, 8 id. 38.

Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Smith, contra.

MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Whiteside v. United States


text: Talk:Whiteside v. United States

title: Talk:Whiteside v. United States


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

Discretionary authority was vested in the Secretary of the Treasury to appoint special agents to receive and collect abandoned or captured property in any State or Territory designated as in insurrection by the proclamation of the President issued for that purpose, subject to the condition that the power 'shall not include property which has been used or intended to be used' to aid the rebellion. 12 Stat. 820.

Pursuant to that provision, the petitioners, as they allege, entered into a contract with an assistant special agent, that they should proceed to La Fayette County, in the State of Arkansas, and there procure evidence sufficient to establish the right of the United States to certain lots of cotton there situate, and put the same in shipping order, and transport the cotton to Camden, in that State, there to be delivered to the said assistant special agent. In consideration whereof, it was then and there stipulated in behalf of the United States, as the petitioners allege, that they should have and be entitled to one-half interest in all such cotton so procured, when the same should be condemned; that, in all such cases where the cotton should be released by competent authority subsequent to the seizure, the stipulation was, that they should be paid for all expenses in procuring evidence to warrant the seizure, in putting the cotton in order for shipping, and in transporting the same to the place of delivery; and they aver that they proceeded to the place named, that they procured evidence to warrant the seizure of four hundred and fifty-one bales of cotton, and that they put the same in order for shipping, and transported the same to the place of delivery named in the contract.

Condemnation did not follow the seizure; but the petitioners aver that the cotton was subsequently released by competent authority, and delivered over to the former owners, and that they expended $17,356 in procuring evidence to warrant the seizure of the same, in putting it in order for shipping, and in transporting it to the place named in the contract.

Seasonable appearance was entered by the Attorney-General; and he filed an answer in due form, in which he denied each and every allegation of the petition, and alleged that the United States are not indebted to the petitioners in the sum claimed, or any part thereof. He also set up the following special defences: 1. That the petitioners have not always borne true faith and allegiance to the United States. 2. That they did not file their petition and transmit the same to the court within six years from the time the claim accrued.

Sufficient appears to show that the two lots of cotton mentioned in the petition, amounting to four hundred and fifty-one bales, were collected by the petitioners as abandoned or captured property; that expenses to the amount claimed were incurred by them in transporting, rebaling, and ginning the same, under the alleged contract, the terms of which correspond with those set forth in the petition; and that the same was subsequently released by the military officer commanding in that district before the cotton was condemned, as shown by the finding of the court.

Assistant special agents had no power to make such a contract, and the record fails to show that the contract under which the petitioners claim to have acted was ever approved by the supervising special agent. Express power to make such rules and regulations as were necessary to carry out the provisions of the act enacted for that purpose, was, by the eleventh section of the act of July 2, 1864, vested in the Secretary of the Treasury, with the approval of the President. 13 Stat. 378.

Regulations to effect the object were ordained by the secretary under the prior act, the twelfth article of which provided that 'supervising special agents may contract in behalf of the United States, for the collection and delivery to them of such property in their respective agencies, on the best possible terms, not exceeding twenty-five per cent of the proceeds of the property,' the condition being, that such 'percentage must be in full compensation for all expenses, of whatever character, incurred in collecting, preparing, and delivering such property at the points designated.' Prior to any such contract being made, the party proposing must submit in writing a statement of the kind and amount of property proposed to be collected, the locality whence to be obtained, and all the facts and circumstances connected with it.

Contracts of the kind were required to be in writing, and to be restricted to the collection of particular lots at named localities, except in special cases, where it might extend to the general collection and delivery of all abandoned property in limited districts, not greater than one parish or county. Supervising special agents could recommend an allowance greater than twenty-five per cent of the proceeds, but no greater allowance could be made until it was approved by the Secretary of the Treasury.

Art. 13 of the same regulations provided, 'nor shall any liability be incurred or assumed, or contract be made, on the part of the United States, by such agents, except as authorized by these regulations.' New regulations were issued on the 29th of July, 1864, by which those previously promulgated were superseded; and it was the regulations last named which were in force at the time the contract in this case was executed.

Such contracts for the collection and delivery of abandoned or captured property might still be made by the supervising special agents, when the property was liable to be lost or destroyed in consequence of its location being unknown to the special agents, or from other causes. Parties under such circumstances might propose, for compensation, to collect and deliver it into the hands of such agents, at points designated by them; and the supervising special agents might contract in behalf of the United States for the collection and delivery to them of such property in their respective agencies, on the best possible terms, not exceeding twenty-five per cent of the proceeds of the property, the condition being, as in the prior regulations, that the percentage allowed must be in full compensation for all expenses, of whatever character, incurred in collecting, preparing, and delivering such property at the points designated.

Three other conditions are also annexed to the exercise of the power therein granted, as follows: 1. That the party proposing, prior to any such contract being made, must submit, in writing, a statement of the kind and amount of property proposed to be collected, the locality whence to be obtained, and all the facts and circumstances connected with it, particularly as to its ownership. 2. That any contract made in pursuance of the regulation must be in writing, and must be restricted to the collection and delivery of particular lots at named localities, except in special cases, where the contract may extend to the general collection and delivery of all abandoned property, in limited districts, as provided in the twelfth article of the prior regulations. 3. That the contractor, before payment to him under the contract, shall execute a bond with penalty, equal to the amount stipulated to be paid to him, and with sureties satisfactory to the supervising special agent, indemnifying the United States against all claims to the property delivered, on account of damages by trespass or otherwise, occasioned by the act or connivance of the contractor, or on account of expenses incurred in the collection, preparation, or transportation of the property.

Payment by the supervising special agent of any greater percentage than one-quarter of the proceeds is also forbidden by these regulations, even though he was of the opinion that the case was one which would justify it. All he could do in such a case was to state the facts and circumstances, and refer the same to the secretary for instructions.

Nothing can be plainer in legal decision, than that the assistant special agent in this case derived no authority under the treasury regulations to make the contract set forth in the petition, and it is equally clear that the record furnishes no other evidence to justify the conclusion that the supervising special agent ever approved it, than what is contained in the indorsement thereon, which reads as follows: 'Subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, the within contract is approved, so far as it conforms to the regulations of the Treasury Department, for paying one-fourth of the cotton condemned; and it is recommended that one-half of said cotton be allowed;' to which is appended the name of the supervising special agent.

Hearing was had; and the court dismissed the petition for the following reasons: 1. That the contract, not having been approved by the supervising special agent, was incomplete, and, no benefit having resulted to the government from its alleged fulfilment, there is no legal or equitable ground for recovery. 2. That if the contract was valid, the loss to the claimant was caused by the illegal seizure subsequently made, and for that the government is not liable.

Due application by the petitioners was made for an appeal, and the same was promptly allowed by the court.

Three errors are assigned by the appellants, as follows: 1. That the court erred in deciding that the United States are not bound by the contract given in evidence. 2. That the court erred in holding that the petitioners could not recover the expenses incurred by them in securing and transporting the cotton. 3. That the court erred in holding that the United States were discharged or relieved of liability by the subsequent illegal and arbitrary acts of their own military officer.

Much aid will be derived from dates in determining the question whether the contract given in evidence was made by competent authority, it being apparent that neither the act of Congress nor the treasury regulations vested any such power in the assistant special agents. Public employees, called supervising special agents, could make contracts for the collection of abandoned and captured property; and if it be conceded that they could also ratify such contracts as were made by assistant special agents, which is not admitted, it becomes highly important to examine with care the indorsement on the contract given in evidence in this case by the petitioners.

Enough has already appeared to show that the terms of the contract referred to were such that it would have been illegal, even if it had been executed by the supervising special agent, inasmuch as it promised one-half interest to the party employed to perform the service in collecting, preparing, and transporting the cotton to the place of storage.

Suppose supervising special agents could ratify contracts made by assistant special agents, it must nevertheless be understood that their power in that behalf was restricted to the ratification of such contracts as they themselves were empowered to make. Even suppose they could ratify a contract made by an assistant special agent allowing the party one quarter interest in the property collected and condemned, it would by no means follow that they could ratify a contract allowing to such party one-half interest in the property for performing the same service, as it is clear that the supervising special agents themselves were never authorized to make such a contract. They could contract to allow one quarter interest in the property, and no more. If a case arose which, in the opinion of the supervising special agent, would justify the payment of a larger percentage, he might make a statement of the facts and circumstances, and give his reasons for the opinion; but all he could do beyond that, was to refer the case to the secretary for instructions.

Coupled with that incurable difficulty are certain other obvious defects in the certificate, which clearly render it insufficient and inoperative as an instrument of ratification. Of these, the first is, that it was not signed by the supervising special agent until March 28, 1866,-more than four months and a half after the contract between the assistant special agent and the petitioners was executed.

Responsive to that, it is suggested that a subsequent ratification is as good as a previous authority; but the decisive answer to that suggestion is, that all the services for which compensation is claimed were performed more than three months before the indorsement in question was made by the supervising special agent. His indorsement bears date as aforesaid, and the finding of the court shows that the services for which compensation is claimed were all performed before the close of the preceding year.

Properly construed, the indorsement is nothing more than a reference of the whole subject to the Secretary of the Treasury for his decision, and it is not pretended that the contract was ever in any respect or to any extent approved or ratified by the secretary. Even when regarded as a mere recommendation, it should be observed that the indorsement does not in any sense extend to the whole contract under which the services were performed. Instead of that, it is expressly restricted to such portions of it as conform to the regulations of the department for paying one-fourth of the cotton condemned. What is said about allowing one-half of the cotton, it is conceded, is only a recommendation; and it must be admitted that it does not comply with the conditions of the regulations, which require that the supervising special agent shall in such a case make a statement of the facts and circumstances, and give the reasons which in his opinion justify such additional allowance.

Viewed in any light, it is clear that the case of the petitioners falls within the prohibition contained in the thirteenth article of the regulations, which reads as follows: 'Nor shall any liability be incurred or assumed or contract be made on the part of the United States by such agents, except as authorized by these regulations.' Changes were subsequently made in the regulations, the sixth article of which forbids supervising agents to collect such cotton directly, or to make contracts for collecting it; but it is unnecessary to enter into those details, as the contract in this case was made during the period the prior regulations were in full force and operation.

Tested by these several considerations, it is obvious that the conclusion of the court below, that the contract was incomplete because not approved by the supervising special agent, is correct. Beyond all doubt, it was made by the assistant special agent, who had no authority to make it; and it appearing that it never was approved by the supervising special agent, it follows that it was null and void.

Two minds are required to make a contract, or to change its terms and conditions after it is executed; and, if so, it is clear that the supervising special agent could not alter or vary the terms and conditions of the contract in this case without the consent of the petitioners, nor could any change be made in the contract, so as to bind the United States, unless it was in writing, as the twelfth article provides that any contract made in pursuance of the regulations must be in writing and be restricted to the collection of particular lots at named localities. Alterations not in writing, even if made by the consent of the parties, would be null and void, because the authority to make such without reducing the same to writing is not conferred by the regulations.

Apply that rule to the case, and it follows beyond all question that the supervising special agent never did approve the contract exhibited in the record. By the terms of the contract as exhibited, the petitioners were to have one-half interest in the cotton procured and condemned; but the indorsement which is invoked as an approval of it by the supervising special agent professes to reduce the allowance to one-fourth of the cotton condemned, and the record discloses no evidence what ever that the petitioners ever assented to any such alteration. On the contrary, the clear inference from the petition is, that they repudiate the suggested modification, as they therein allege that they are entitled to one-half interest in all such cotton so collected for and on behalf of the United States.

No attempt was made by the supervising special agent to approve the contract made by the assistant special agent, except so far as it conformed to the treasury regulations; and inasmuch as it did not conform to those regulations in respect to the compensation to be paid or allowed to the petitioners, it necessarily follows that the contract was made without authority, and that it is inoperative and void.

Argument to show that no benefit ever resulted to the United States from the alleged fulfilment of the contract is quite unnecessary, as the finding of the court below establishes the fact that the cotton was restored to the former owner, and that it never was condemned. Services rendered under a contract executed by an unauthorized agent, and never approved or ratified by any competent authority, create no equity, unless it appears that the services performed resulted in some benefit to the party for whom they were rendered.

Admit that, and still it is insisted by the petitioners that they are entitled to the compensation claimed, because the cotton was restored to the former owner. They were to be allowed, by the terms of the contract, one-half of the cotton 'so recovered and condemned; ' but none was condemned, so that they cannot claim any thing under that stipulation, even if the contract is operative and binding.

Without assenting to that proposition, they next contend, that they are at least entitled to the expenses under the succeeding clause in the contract, which provides that 'in all cases where the cotton is released after seizure, upon sufficient evidence to warrant the same, the petitioners will be repaid all expenses in performing the stipulated service.'

Two facts must concur, even if the contract is operative, to entitle the petitioners to recover expenses: 1. That the cotton was released by the United States. 2. That the seizure was made upon sufficient evidence to warrant the same.

Neither is proved; and the first proposition is substantially negatived by the finding of the court below. Particular description is given of the several lots of cotton; and the finding of the court is to the effect that two of the lots of cotton, amounting to four hundred and fifty-one bales, were forcibly taken out of the warehouse where they were deposited by the military officer commanding in the district, and were restored to the former owner. Evidence to show that the officer acted in behalf of the United States is entirely wanting, and the case proceeded here throughout the trial upon the ground that the acts of the officer in restoring the cotton were unauthorized and unlawful, nor was any evidence introduced to show under what circumstances the cotton was seized, whether with or without sufficient evidence to justify the seizure within the meaning of the contract.

Different rules prevail in respect to the acts and declarations of public agents from those which ordinarily govern in the case of mere private agents. Principals, in the latter category, are in many cases bound by the acts and declarations of their agents, even where the act or declaration was done or made without any authority, if it appear that the act was done or declaration was made by the agent in the course of his regular employment; but the government or public authority is not bound in such a case, unless it manifestly appears that the agent was acting within the scope of his authority, or that he had been held out as having authority to do the act, or was employed in his capacity as a public agent to do the act or make the declaration for the government. Story's Agency (6th ed.), sect. 307 a; Lee v. Munroe, 7 Cranch, 376.

Although a private agent, acting in violation of specific instructions, yet within the scope of his general authority, may bind his principal, the rule as to the effect of the like act of a public agent is otherwise, for the reason that it is better that an individual should occasionally suffer from the mistakes of public officers or agents, than to adopt a rule which, through improper combinations or collusion, might be turned to the detriment and injury of the public. Mayor v. Eschback, 17 Md. 282.

Individuals as well as courts must take notice of the extent of authority conferred by law upon a person acting in an official capacity, and the rule applies in such a case that ignorance of the law furnishes no excuse for any mistake or wrongful act. State v. Hayes, 52 Mo. 578; Delafield v. State, 26 Wend. 238; People v. Bank, 24 id. 431; Mayor v. Reynolds, 20 Md. 10.

Torts committed by an officer in the service of the United States do not render the government liable in an implied assumpsit, even though the acts done were apparently for the public benefit. Gibbons v. United States, 8 Wall. 274.

Neither fact nor circumstance is found in the record tending to show that the officer who took the cotton from the warehouse where it was stored, and returned it to the former owner, possessed any authority to interfere in the matter; and it is clear, that if the cotton was abandoned or captured property, within the meaning of the act of Congress under which it was collected, transported, and stored, the acts of the officer were unauthorized and unlawful. Proof to support his authority not being found in the record, it cannot be presumed in this case, and consequently it does not appear that the cotton was released after seizure by the United States.

Suffice to say, that, in the opinion of the court, the case shows no legal or equitable ground of recovery.

Judgment affirmed.


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


text:
User:AdamBMorgan/Books/The Return of Tarzan

ERB's Second Tarzan Novel

 * Chapter 1
 * Chapter 2
 * Chapter 3
 * Chapter 4
 * Chapter 5
 * Chapter 6
 * Chapter 7
 * Chapter 8
 * Chapter 9
 * Chapter 10
 * Chapter 11
 * Chapter 12
 * Chapter 13
 * Chapter 14
 * Chapter 15
 * Chapter 16
 * Chapter 17
 * Chapter 18
 * Chapter 19
 * Chapter 20
 * Chapter 21
 * Chapter 22
 * Chapter 23
 * Chapter 24
 * Chapter 25
 * Chapter 26


text:
User:AdamBMorgan/Books/The Beasts of Tarzan

ERB's Third Tarzan Novel

 * Chapter 1
 * Chapter 2
 * Chapter 3
 * Chapter 4
 * Chapter 5
 * Chapter 6
 * Chapter 7
 * Chapter 8
 * Chapter 9
 * Chapter 10
 * Chapter 11
 * Chapter 12
 * Chapter 13
 * Chapter 14
 * Chapter 15
 * Chapter 16
 * Chapter 17
 * Chapter 18
 * Chapter 19
 * Chapter 20
 * Chapter 21


text:
Barkley v. Levee Commissioners

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

Argued by Mr. E. T. Merrick for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. C. L. Walker for the defendants in error.

MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Barkley v. Levee Commissioners


text: Talk:Barkley v. Levee Commissioners

title: Talk:Barkley v. Levee Commissioners