text:
McGoon v. Scales/Opinion of the Court

The shortest and most satisfactory mode of showing the reasons for our judgment is to examine the title of defendant, which the jury were told was the true one.

If the attachment proceedings conveyed a good title, it must prevail; and we proceed to an examination of some of the objections to it.

1. It is claimed that the land was sold for State taxes in April, 1849, and that the title under that sale became vested in plaintiff.

The answer to this is, that the land was then owned by the United States and was not subject to State taxation, the sale to Gear having been made in 1851, and the patent issued in 1852.

2. It is claimed that at the time the attachment in favor of Corwith was levied on these lands, in his suit against the State Bank of Illinois, they were not subject to attachment and sale for the debts of that institution.

In establishing this proposition it is first asserted that the legal title never vested in the bank.

The deed from Gear to Campbell, in our judgment, did vest the legal title in the bank after the act of 1850. It is a principle too firmly established to admit of dispute at this day, that to the law of the State in which land is situated must we look for the rules which govern its descent, alienation, and transfer, and for the effect and construction of conveyances.

The effect of the statute of Wisconsin, passed in 1850, was to abolish all passive trusts in which the trustee held a mere naked or dry trust for the use of the cestui que trust, and to vest the title in the beneficiary. And the only question to be decided in this connection is whether the deed of Gear to Campbell is of this character.

The bank buys the land of Gear of fifty thousand dollars, the amount of its debt against Gear, which is thereby satisfied. Campbell does not sign the deed or accept the trust otherwise than by silence. If the land is not sold, he holds the naked legal title to the use of the bank and its assigns. The only possible event in which he may be called into action is on a sale of the land. It is equally clear, that in this sale the only part to be performed by him was to make conveyance. He is to sell for such sum or sums as shall be directed by the president, directors, &c., of the bank, and they are to receive the proceeds of sale. In other words, they find a purchaser at such price as they may be willing to take, they receive the purchase-money, and Mr. Campbell makes a conveyance. It is difficult to conceive of a more passive trust, or one in which the trustee may be called upon to do less than in this.

A case decided recently by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin is produced to us in manuscript, and much relied on as holding views adverse to those above stated. But we think it supports them. That court says, that 'by the statute of uses and trusts passive trusts are abolished. By passive trusts we mean those which are express, or created by the words of some deed or other instrument of writing, and not those arising or resulting by implication of law. Every express passive trust is abolished, and the deed or instrument by which it is created, or attempted to be, takes effect as a conveyance directly to the cestui que trust in whom the legal title vests, and the trustee acquires no estate or interest whatever. A conveyance of land from A. to B. to the use of or in trust for C., the trustee having no active duties to perform, constitutes a passive trust.'

We think this is a sound construction of the statute, and that the deed to Campbell comes within it. In the case before the Wisconsin court the trustee was directed to bargain, sell, and convey, to lease, demise, and mortgage the lands as he might be directed by the cestui que trust, and to pay over to her all the moneys arising from said property, whether from rents, sale, or mortgage, and take her written receipt therefor, and to reinvest the same from time to time as she should in writing direct.

There can be no doubt that this trust was an active one, and as little that the one before us was not.

But if this were otherwise, a statute of Wisconsin in force when the land was sold under Corwith's judgment declares, that 'lands, tenements, and real estate holden by any one in trust for another, shall be liable to debts, judgments, decrees, executions, and attachments against the person to whose use they are holden.' So that if the trust in Campbell was a valid one, these lands were still liable to be sold on execution for the debt of the bank. Nor can it be doubted that such a sale, when lawful in all other respects, and completed by the conveyance of the sheriff, vested in the grantee the legal title to the land.

But it is said, secondly, that conceding the title to have been vested in the bank, that corporation had made a conveyance of the lands, before Corwith's proceedings were instituted, to Manly, Calhoun, and Ridgely, for the benefit of the creditors of the bank and for the payment of its debts.

There is no question that such a deed was made, nor is it denied that a valid deed of assignment, for the benefit of creditors, generally places the property so assigned beyond the reach of the ordinary process of attachment or execution directed against the property of the assignor.

But the deed in question was a peculiar deed, and made under very peculiar circumstances.

Under the circumstances, it cannot be doubted that the effect of this conveyance is to be measured by the terms of the act, and that if any of its provisions are in conflict with that act they must to that extent give way. Now, the very last section of that act, after the previous sections, and, indeed, previous statutes had fully defined the duties and powers of these trustees, declares expressly that 'the real estate of said bank shall be liable to taxation and sale on execution in the same manner as the property of individuals.' So far, then, as this conveyance by the bank to the trustees affected the liability of these lands to judicial sale for the debts of the bank, it left them in precisely the same condition they were before, and this whether the deed to Campbell is to be construed as a passive or an active trust, and the title of the bank under it a legal or an equitable one.

It must, therefore, be taken as established that the land in question was liable to be subjected to judicial sale for the debts of the bank, and the only remaining question concerns the validity of the proceeding under which this was attempted.

Most of the objections urged under this head relate to the regularity of those proceedings, and many errors are pointed out which are supposed to affect the title acquired under them. But the doctrine of this court, and of all the courts of this country, is firmly established, that if the court in which the proceedings took place had jurisdiction to render the judgment which it did, no error in its proceedings which did not affect the jurisdiction will render the proceeding void; nor can such errors be considered when the judgment is brought collaterally into question. With this cardinal principle in mind many of the alleged errors in the proceeding under the attachment must be disregarded.

There can be no question of the right of the legislature of Wisconsin to pass such laws as will subject property within her territory, held or owned by non-residents, to the payment of the debts of such owners; and the manner of doing this is also entirely within legislative control, provided it does not violate some of the provisions of the Federal or State constitutions.

The court in which these proceedings were had was a court of general jurisdiction, and had undoubted authority to attach the property of the bank for the payment of its debts, and every presumption must be made in favor of the validity of its proceeding not inconsistent with the record.

We will, however, notice a few of the alleged errors which are supported to touch the point of the court's jurisdiction.

1. It is said that the bank was dead in law, and that as the suit was instituted against the bank by name, no jurisdiction was acquired.

It is by no means certain that the bank had no capacity to sustain a suit, notwithstanding the expiration of its charter and the transfer of its property to trustees. But, however this may be, those very trustees, in whom plaintiff claims that the title was vested, and from whom he derives title by deed, appeared to this suit and moved to dissolve the attachment, and the bank appeared by attorney and defended the suit. Both must then be bound by these proceedings, and neither can deny a jurisdiction to which they voluntarily submitted.

2. The legislature of Wisconsin had made provision by special statute for a case in which a bank, whose functions had ceased, but which yet owned property and owed debts in Wisconsin, might be sued and the property subjected to the payment of those debts. The constitutionality of this act is denied; but no provision of the constitution of Wisconsin or of the United States is pointed out which is opposed to such legislation. It would, on the contrary, be a strange defect in the legislative power if, under such circumstances, a State could not frame laws which would enable her citizens to subject the lands of a corporation whose charter had expired to the debts which it owed to her citizens.

3. It is said that the judgment under which this sale was made was reversed, and this is true.

But the sale was made while the judgment was in force to one who was no party to the suit, and the reversal of the judgment could not, as is well settled, affect the purchaser.

4. It is said the sale was void because made under an execution which had no seal.

The court from which the execution issued permitted it to be amended after sale by affixing a seal. Whether the sale would have been void without the seal, and whether the amendment was rightfully made, were questions of Wisconsin law, and this and all other such questions were decided in favor of the sale by the Wisconsin court on motion to set aside the sale. That decision must control us as to all that concerns the regularity of these proceedings.

As we have examined all that can be said to affect the jurisdiction of the court and the authority of the officer to make the sale, we need inquire no further.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

title: McGoon v. Scales/Opinion of the Court


text: Talk:McGoon v. Scales/Opinion of the Court

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


text:
Haver v. Yaker

ERROR to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky; the case being thus:

One Yaker, a Swiss by birth, who had come many years ago to the United States and become a naturalized citizen thereof, died in Kentucky in 1853, intestate, seized of real estate there. He left a widow, who was a resident and citizen of Kentucky, and certain heirs and next of kin, aliens and residents in Switzerland.

By the laws of Kentucky in force in 1853, the date of his death, aliens were not allowed to inherit real estate except under certain conditions, within which Yaker's heirs did not come, and if the matter was to depend on those laws, the widow was, by the laws then in force in Kentucky, plainly entitled to the estate.

However, in 1850, a treaty was 'concluded and signed' by the respective plenipotentiaries of the two countries, between the Swiss Confederation and the United States, upon the proper construction of which, as Yaker's heirs asserted-although the widow denied that the construction put upon the treaty by the heirs was a right one-these heirs were entitled to take and hold the estate. The treaty provided by its terms that it should be submitted on both sides to the approval and ratification of the respective competent authorities of each contracting party, and that the ratifications should be exchanged at Washington as soon as circumstances should admit. It was so submitted, but was not duly ratified, nor were the respective ratifications exchanged in Washington till November 8th, 1855, at which time the ratification and exchange was made. And on the next day the President, by proclamation-the treaty having been altered in the Senate-made the treaty public.

In 1859 the Swiss heirs, who had apparently not heard before of their kinsman's death, instituted proceedings to have the real estate of their kinsman, now in possession of the widow, assigned to them, and arguing that on a right construction of the treaty it was theirs.

But a preliminary question, and in case of one resolution of it, a conclusive objection to their claim was here raised; the question, namely, at what time the treaty of 1850-55, as it regarded private rights, became a law. Was it when it bore date, or was it only when the ratifications were exchanged between the parties to it? If not until it was ratified, then there was no necessity of deciding whether by its terms the heirs of Yaker had any just claim to this real estate, because in no aspect of the case could the treaty have a retroactive effect so as to defeat the title of the widow, which vested in her, by the law of Kentucky of 1853, on the death of her husband.

The Court of Appeals of Kentucky, where the heirs set up the treaty as a basis of their title, decided that it took effect only when ratified, and so deciding against their claim, the case was now here for review under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act.

Messrs. Carlisle and McPherson, for the heirs, citing Kent's Commentaries, and United States v. Reynes, in this court, contended that a treaty binds the contracting parties from its conclusion; and that this is understood to be from the day it is signed. If that view was right, the treaty was operative at the date of Yaker's death, and as they argued carried the estate to the heirs.

Mr. Montgomery Blair, contra; a brief of Messrs. Porter and Beck being filed on the same side, argued that while the position of the other side might be admitted so far as respected the contracting governments, the position was not true as respected private rights. And this for a good reason. For that with us a treaty must be agreed to by the Senate, and this in secret session, before it becomes a law. While before the Senate it may be amended and largely altered. This particular treaty, the President's proclamation shows, was amended, and for aught that appears to the contrary, the very article upon which the heirs of Yaker now found their claim, may have been the only amendment made, and it may have been inserted long after Yaker's death and the accrual of the widow's rights.

If this view is right we need not inquire into the meaning of the treaty.

Mr. Justice DAVIS delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Haver v. Yaker


text: Talk:Haver v. Yaker

title: Talk:Haver v. Yaker


text:
Haver v. Yaker/Opinion of the Court

It is undoubtedly true, as a principle of international law, that, as respects the rights of either government under it, a treaty is considered as concluded and binding from the date of its signature. In this regard the exchange of ratifications has a retroactive effect, confirming the treaty from its date. But a different rule prevails where the treaty operates on individual rights. The principle of relation does not apply to rights of this character, which were vested before the treaty was ratified. In so far as it affects them, it is not considered as concluded until there is an exchange of ratifications, and this we understand to have been decided by this court, in Arredondo's case, reported in 6th Peters. The reason of the rule is apparent. In this country, a treaty is something more than a contract, for the Federal Constitution declares it to be the law of the land. If so, before it can become a law, the Senate, in whom rests the authority to ratify it, must agree to it. But the Senate are not required to adopt or reject it as a whole, but may modify or amend it, as was done with the treaty under consideration. As the individual citizen, on whose rights of property it operates, has no means of knowing anything of it while before the Senate, it would be wrong in principle to hold him bound by it, as the law of the land, until it was ratified and proclaimed. And to construe the law, so as to make the ratification of the treaty relate back to its signing, thereby divesting a title already vested, would be manifestly unjust, and cannot be sanctioned.

These views dispose of this case, and we are not required to determine whether this treaty, if it had become a law at an earlier date, would have secured the plaintiffs in error the interest which they claim in the real estate left by Yaker at his death.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

title: Haver v. Yaker/Opinion of the Court


text: Talk:Haver v. Yaker/Opinion of the Court


text:
Gut v. The State

ERROR to the Supreme Court of Minnesota. The case was thus:

A statute of Minnesota, in force in 1866, required that criminal causes should be tried in the county where the offences were committed. The offence charged against the defendant was committed in December of that year, in the county of Brown, in that State. At that time four other counties, which were unorganized, were attached to Brown County for judicial purposes. On the 9th of March, 1867, a statute was passed by the legislature of the State authorizing the judge of the District Court, in cases where one or more counties were attached to another county for judicial purposes, to order, whenever he should consider it to be in furtherance of justice, or for the public convenience, that the place of holding the court should be changed from the county then designated by law to one of the other counties thus attached.

Under this act the judge of the district embracing Brown County ordered that the place of holding the court should be changed from that county to the county of Redwood, within the same district, and the change was accordingly made. The court subsequently held its sessions in Redwood County, where the defendant, in September, 1867, was indicted for murder in the first degree. The plea of not guilty having been interposed the case was transferred, on his motion, to Nicollet County, in an adjoining district, where he was tried, convicted, and sentenced. On appeal to the Supreme Court of the State the judgment was affirmed, and the case was now brought to this court under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act.

Mr. E. M. Wilson, for the plaintiff in error, contended in this court, as it was also contended in the court below, that the act of Minnesota, under which the court was held in Redwood County, and the grand jury were summoned, was unconstitutional so far as it authorized an indictment or trial there of an offence previously committed in Brown County; that it was in effect an ex post facto law, and, therefore, within the inhibition of the Federal Constitution.

Mr. F. R. E. Cornell, Attorney-General of Minnesota, contra.

Mr. Justice FIELD, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court, as follows:

title: Gut v. The State


text: Talk:Gut v. The State

title: Talk:Gut v. The State


text:
Gut v. The State/Opinion of the Court

The objection to the act of Minnesota, if there be any, does not rest on the ground that it is an ex post facto law, and, therefore, within the inhibition of the Federal Constitution. It must rest, if it has any force, upon that provision of the State constitution which declares that, 'in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which county or district shall have been previously ascertained by law.' But the Supreme Court of the State has held that the act in question is not in conflict with this provision; that the act does not change the district, but merely the place of trial in the district, which is not forbidden. And it appears that jurors for the trial of criminal offences committed in one of the counties of the several attached together for judicial purposes, are chosen from all the counties; and that this was the law before, as it has been since the passage of the act which is the subject of complaint. Therefore the defendant, had he not secured, by his own motion, a change of venue, would have had a jury of the district in which the crime was committed, and which district was previously ascertained by law.

The ruling of the State court is conclusive upon this court, upon the point that the law in question does not violate the constitutional provision cited.

Undoubtedly the provision securing to the accused a public trial within the county or district in which the offence is committed is of the highest importance. It prevents the possibility of sending him for trial to a remote district, at a distance from friends, among strangers, and perhaps parties animated by prejudices of a personal or partisan character; but its enforcement in cases arising under State laws is not a matter within the jurisdiction of the Federal courts.

A law changing the place of trial from one county to another county in the same district, or even to a different district from that in which the offence was committed, or the indictment found, is not an ex post facto law, though passed subsequent to the commission of the offence or the finding of the indictment. An ex post facto law does not involve, in any of its definitions, a change of the place of trial of an alleged offence after its commission. It is defined by Chief Justice Marshall, in Fletcher v. Peck, to be a law, 'which renders an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when it was committed;' and in Cummings v. Missouri, with somewhat greater fulness, as a law 'which imposes a punishment for an act which was not punishable at the time it was committed; or imposes additional punishment to that then prescribed; or changes the rules of evidence, by which less or different testimony is sufficient to convict than was then required.'

The act of Minnesota under consideration has no feature which brings it within either of these definitions.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

title: Gut v. The State/Opinion of the Court


text: Talk:Gut v. The State/Opinion of the Court


text:
Basset v. United States

ERROR to the Circuit Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

The United States sued Basset and another on a recognizance of bail, to which they pleaded two pleas:1. That there was no record of any such recognizance in the court.

2. That there was no indictment, as recited in said recognizance, pending against their principal when the recognizance was entered into, because they say that he had pleaded guilty to the indictment, and judgment had passed against him, and he had been delivered to the jail of Erie County, and had entered upon the expiation of his sentence.

The United States took issue on both these pleas, and the case was submitted to the court without a jury.

1. In respect to the first plea, the production of the record of the case showed that the recognizance was taken, and remained among the rolls and records of the court; so that there seemed nothing in the plea.

2. As regarded the second, it appeared by the record that to the indictment which the prisoner was held to answer by the recognizance, he had at an earlier period of the same term pleaded guilty, and had been sentenced to imprisonment in the jail of Erie County for six months, and was sent to that prison. But a few days after, on motion of the district attorney, he was brought back on a writ of habeas corpus. When he was thus brought again into court, on motion of the district attorney, the former judgment was set aside, and the prisoner had leave to withdraw his plea of guilty formerly entered. It was after this was done that the recognizance on which this action was brought was given, conditioned for the appearance of the prisoner from day to day during the term; and on his failing to appear the second day his recognizance was declared to be forfeited. All of this took place during the same term of the court.

The court below decided that there was a record of the recognizance denied by the first plea, and that there was no such record of conviction and sentence as that set up in the second plea. On motion of defendants a new trial was granted, which was also by the court, and on this trial a statement of facts, agreed to and signed by counsel for both parties, was presented to the court, on which it rendered the same judgment that it had before. This statement of facts consisted of extracts from the records of the court, and it was upon the inspection of this record that the court decided the case.

The judgment was now brought here by Basset and the other obligors in the recognizance, and was submitted by them, without counsel, upon the record; and contra, upon a brief of Mr. Hoar, A. G., and Mr. Field, Assistant A. G.

Mr. Justice MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Basset v. United States


text: Talk:Basset v. United States

title: Talk:Basset v. United States


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

Both the pleas of the defendants were pleas of nul tiel record, the first denying the existence of the recognizance, and the second denying the pending of the indictment at the time the recognizance was taken. A plea of nul tiel record to a supposed record of the court in which the plea is made is tried by the court, because it is an issue to be determined by the inspection of its own records. But where the record of a foreign court is denied by this plea the issue is to be tried by a jury, because the existence of the record to be inspected must first be made by proof, which it may be necessary to submit to a jury.

When a court sits in place of a jury and finds the facts this court cannot review that finding. If there is any error in such case, shown by the record, in admitting or rejecting testimony, it can be reviewed here. But when the court, by permission of the parties, takes the place of the jury, its finding of facts is conclusive, precisely as if a jury had found them by verdict.

In the case before us, however, the court did not sit to supply the place of a jury, because the record, the existence of which was denied by both pleas, was the record of the court in which the pleas were made. When, therefore, such record as did exist in regard to the matters in issue, was presented to the court, the only question to be determined, on which the court could exercise any judgment, was a question of law, namely, whether in legal effect there was found a record of the recognizance, and a subsisting legal judgment of conviction and punishment prior to the taking of the recognizance.

Both these questions of law are proper for review here, and are fairly presented by the agreed statement of what the record is.

1. In regard to the first, there is no doubt that the recognizance was taken, and remains in the records of the court.

2. As regards the second plea, it appears by the record that all which took place took place during the same term of the court, and we see no reason to doubt that the court had power during that term, for proper cause, to set aside the judgment rendered on confession. This control of the court over its own judgment during the term is of every-day practice. #fn-s-s The judgment then being set aside the indictment remained, and the recognizance of the prisoner and his sureties to appear and answer to it was valid.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.


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


text:
United States v. Dewitt

ON certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Michigan; the case being this:Section 29 of the act of March 2d, 1867, declares,

'That no person shall mix for sale naphtha and illuminating oils, or shall knowingly sell or keep for sale, or offer for sale such mixture, or shall sell or offer for sale oil made from petroleum for illuminating purposes, inflammable at less temperature or fire-test than 110 degrees Fahrenheit; and any person so doing, shall be held to be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof by indictment or presentment in any court of the United States having competent jurisdiction, shall be punished by fine, &c., and imprisonment,' &c.

Under this section one Dewitt was indicted, the offence charged being the offering for sale, at Detroit, in Michigan, oil made of petroleum of the description specified. There was no allegation that the sale was in violation or evasion of any tax imposed on the property sold. It was alleged only that the sale was made contrary to law.

To this indictment there was a demurrer; and thereupon arose two questions, on which the judges were opposed in opinion.

(1.) Whether the facts charged in the indictment constituted any offence under any valid and constitutional law of the United States?

(2.) Whether the aforesaid section 29 of the act of March 2d, 1867, was a valid and constitutional law of the United States?

Mr. Field, Assistant Attorney-General, for the United States.

Instances of the exercise of police power over certain instruments or agencies of commerce, for the protection of life and property, are found in various acts of Congress.

In the License Tax Cases, it is held that the provisions of the internal revenue laws requiring the payment of a license tax, and prohibiting under penalties the exercise of certain kinds of business within a State without such tax having been paid, are only modes of enforcing the payment of excise taxes; that the payment of such special tax or license tax conveys to the licensee no authority to carry on the business licensed within a State which prohibits its being carried on; but that such provisions of law as incidental to the taxing power are not unconstitutional.

So far as appears, there was no law of the State of Michigan regulating the sale of oil made from petroleum at the time when the alleged offence was committed. There is no decision of this court that Congress cannot enact a law regulating trade in a State, in the absence of any regulation by the State, when the articles of the trade thus regulated may enter into commerce with other States or with foreign countries. It has been decided by this court that Congress may prohibit the exercise of a trade within a State under a penalty, in aid of, or for the purpose of collecting excise taxes levied upon the exercise of such trade.

One reason for the enactment may have been the protection of transportation companies between the States and between the United States and foreign countries from danger to property and life in transporting oil, mixed or sold in violation of this statute; and the protection of revenue officers in the examination, gauging, marking, and storing of such oil, and the proper distinction between and classification of different kinds of mineral oils made necessary for the convenient assessment and collection of excise taxes. If this was the reason, then the regulations are fairly incidental to the exercise of the power to regulate commerce or of the taxing power, and, as such, constitutional.

Mr. Wills, contra.

The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.

title: United States v. Dewitt


text: Talk:United States v. Dewitt

title: Talk:United States v. Dewitt


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

The questions certified resolve themselves into this: Has Congress power, under the Constitution, to prohibit trade within the limits of a State?

That Congress has power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes, the Constitution expressly declares. But this express grant of power to regulate commerce among the States has always been understood as limited by its terms; and as a virtual denial of any power to interfere with the internal trade and business of the separate States; except, indeed, as a necessary and proper means for carrying into execution some other power expressly granted or vested.

It has been urged in argument that the provision under which this indictment was framed is within this exception; that the prohibition of the sale of the illuminating oil described in the indictment was in aid and support of the internal revenue tax imposed on other illuminating oils. And we have been referred to provisions, supposed to be analogous, regulating the business of distilling liquors, and the mode of packing various manufactured articles; but the analogy appears to fail at the essential point, for the regulations referred to are restricted to the very articles which are the subject of taxation, and are plainly adapted to secure the collection of the tax imposed; while, in the case before us, no tax is imposed on the oils the sale of which is prohibited. If the prohibition, therefore, has any relation to taxation at all, it is merely that of increasing the production and sale of other oils, and, consequently, the revenue derived from them, by excluding from the market the particular kind described.

This consequence is too remote and too uncertain to warrant us in saying that the prohibition is an appropriate and plainly adapted means for carrying into execution the power of laying and collecting taxes.

There is, indeed, no reason for saying that it was regarded by Congress as such a means, except that it is found in an act imposing internal duties. Standing by itself, it is plainly a regulation of police; and that it was so considered, if not by the Congress which enacted, it, certainly by the succeeding Congress, may be inferred from the circumstance, that while all special taxes on illuminating oils were repealed by the act of July 20th, 1868, which subjected distillers and refiners to the tax on sales as manufacturers, this prohibition was left unrepealed.

As a police regulation, relating exclusively to the internal trade of the State, it can only have effect where the legislative authority of Congress excludes, territorially, all State legislation, as for example, in the District of Columbia. Within State limits, it can have no constitutional operation. This has been so frequently declared by this court, results so obviously from the terms of the Constitution, and has been so fully explained and supported on former occasions, that we think it unnecessary to enter again upon the discussion.

The first question certified must, therefore, be answered in the negative.

The second question must also be answered in the negative, except so far as the section named operates within the United States, but without the limits of any State.


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


text:
Filor v. United States

APPEAL from the Court of Claims. The material facts of this case, as found by the court, were thus:

In 1861 one Asa F. Tift, a citizen of Florida, was the owner in fee of certain real property, situated in Key West, in that State, known as Tift's wharf. In January of that year he was a member of the convention which passed the ordinance of secession, purporting to dissolve the connection of the State with the National Union, and signed the ordinance. In May following, with the intention of joining the Confederates against the United States, he left Key West and removed to the State of Georgia, where he resided during the continuance of the rebellion. Before leaving Key West he executed a power of attorney to one Charles Tift, authorizing him to sell and convey all his property, or any part of it, situated on that island. In December, 1861, through his attorney, he sold and conveyed the premises to the petitioners, as tenants in common, for the consideration of eighteen thousand dollars, for which sum they gave their several promissory notes, according to their respective proportions, of which three, each for one thousand dollars, were payable on demand, and the residue were payable from one to five years, with annual interest at six per cent. These notes were retained by the attorney under an agreement between him and the makers until after Asa S. Tift had received from the President a full pardon for offences committed by participation in the rebellion, which was granted in July, 1865. They were then delivered to him.

After the purchase made by the petitioners the officers of the quartermaster's department at Key West desired possession of the wharf, and its appurtenances, for the use of the United States, but the petitioners refused to lease the property. Thereupon the commanding officer at Key West, 'for the purpose of effecting a lease of it' (such is the language of the finding), issued an order for its seizure 'for the use of the quartermaster's department of the United States army.' Under the pressure of this order an agreement was concluded between Filor, one of the petitioners, acting for all of them, and Lieutenant Gibbs, of the United States army, at the time assistant quartermaster, who assumed to act on behalf of the United States, which agreement purported to lease the property, and various pieces of machinery, and other articles connected with it, to the United States for one year from January 1st, 1862, and as much longer as might be required by the quartermaster's department, at an annual rent of six thousand dollars, payable quarterly. This agreement was approved by the commanding officer at Key West, but was not approved by the quartermaster-general, nor was it disapproved by him until February 8th, 1866. Under the agreement the officers of the quartermaster's department at Key West entered upon and took possession of the premises, and used them in the service of the United States until the 1st of January, 1867.

No rent was ever paid to the petitioners under the agreement, or for the use and occupation of the premises, and to recover the full amount stipulated for the five years, the present suit was brought.

When the agreement was made, and possession was taken of the premises, the officers of the quartermaster's department at Key West had full knowledge of the fact that Asa F. Tift had adhered to Florida in her attempted secession from the Union, and had joined the Confederates in Georgia, and was, with them, in open war against the United States at the time the deed was executed to the petitioners.

The Court of Claims held that the deed was void, as a contract between enemies, and that the officers of the quartermaster's department at Key West were not authorized to hire for the United States the premises, the title to which was invalid, from the circumstances stated, which were known to them at the time.

''Mr. Thomas Wilson, for the appellant. Mr. Talbot, contra, for the United States'', was stopped by the court.

Mr. Justice FIELD, after stating the facts of the case, delivered the opinion of the court, as follows:

title: Filor v. United States


text: Talk:Filor v. United States

title: Talk:Filor v. United States


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

The determination of this case does not depend upon the validity or invalidity of the title of the petitioners to the property in question. The difficulty with their claim does not arise, as the court below appears to have considered, solely from the supposed invalidity of their title. There is a difficulty from another quarter. We do not find, in any regulation of the army, or in any act of Congress, that the acting assistant quartermaster at Key West was invested with power to bind the United States to the agreement or lease produced, even though his action was taken by direction of the military commander at that station, and the instrument was approved by him. No lease of premises for the use of the quartermaster's department, or any branch of it, could be binding upon the government until approved by the quartermaster-general. Until such approval the action of the officers at Key West was as ineffectual to fix any liability upon the government as if they had been entirely disconnected from the public service. The agreement or lease was, so far as the government is concerned, the work of strangers. The obligation of the government for the use of the property is exactly what it would have been if the possession had been taken and held without the existence of the agreement. Any obligation of that character cannot be considered by the Court of Claims. The jurisdiction of that court, says the act of Congress of July 4th, 1864, 'shall not extent to, or include, any claim against the United States, growing out of the destruction or appropriation of, or damage to, property by the army or navy, or any part of the army or navy engaged in the suppression of the rebellion, from the commencement to the close thereof.' The premises of the petitioners were thus appropriated by a portion of the army. It matters not that the petitioners, supposing that the officers at Key West could bind the government to pay a stipulated rent for the premises, consented to such appropriation. The manner of the appropriation, whether made by force or upon the consent of the owner, does not affect the question of jurisdiction. The consideration of any claim, whatever its character, growing out of such appropriation, is excluded. The term appropriation is of the broadest import: it includes all taking and use of property by the army or nevy, in the course of the war, not authorized by contract with the government. The use may be permanent or temporary, and it may result in the destruction of or mere injury to the property. If the right to the property, or to its use, is not obtained by valid contract with the government, the taking or use of it is an appropriation within the meaning of the act of Congress.

The learned counsel of the petitioners is correct in stating that leasing and appropriation are different acts, but he errs when he assumes that the instrument in this case has any greater validity as the act of the government than if it had been signed by himself.

The doctrine of estoppel, which the counsel invokes, has no application. There is no place where the doctrine can come in. The officers at Key West did not represent the United States, except in their military capacity, though assuming to do so. In signing the agreement, and in taking possession of the premises claimed by the petitioners, they acted on their own responsibility. Their unauthorized acts cannot estop the government from insisting upon their invalidity, however beneficial they may have proved to the United States. If the petitioners are entitled to compensation for the use of the property they must seek it from Congress. The Court of Claims can award them none.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.


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


text:
Chicago v. Sheldon

In error to the Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois; the case being thus:

The constitution of Illinois ordains that taxes shall be levied so that each person shall pay in proportion to the value of his property; and that where corporate authorities of counties, cities, &c., are authorized to levy and collect taxes for corporate purposes, the taxes shall be uniform in respect to persons and property.

With those provisions in force, as fundamental law, the legislature of the State, in February, 1859, authorized the North Chicago City Railway Company to construct and operate a single or double track of a horse railway on certain streets of the city, 'in such manner and upon such terms and conditions, and with such rights and privileges as the said common council may, by contract with said parties, prescribe.'

On the 23d May, of the same year, the common council passed an ordinance by which they granted to the company permission to lay, for twenty-five years, a single or double track of railway on certain streets of the city, upon certain conditions prescribed; these conditions relating chiefly to the sort of motive power, the purposes for which the railway was to be used, the style and class of car, the sort of track and degree of its elevation, and the rates of fare. Then followed a section thus:

'The said company shall, as respects the grading, paving, macadamizing, filling, or planking of the streets, or parts of the streets, upon which they shall construct their said railways, or any of them, keep eight feet in width along the line of said railway on all the streets wherever one track is constructed, and sixteen feet in width along the line of said railway where two tracks are constructed, in good repair and condition during all the time to which the privileges hereby granted to said company shall extend, in accordance with whatever order or regulation respecting the ordinary repairs thereof may be adopted by the common council of said city.'

After this contract was made, and carried into execution by the railway company, and up to the year 1866, the common council passed several ordinances for the improvement of some of the streets occupied by the company, thereby providing for curbing them with curbstone, grading and paving them with wooden blocks, known as the Nicholson pavement. Under none of these, however, was the railway property of the street railway corporation assessed, except under one passed in the year last named. In that year the proprietors of certain lots fronting on streets where the railway was laid, refused to pay the assessments made on them, upon the ground that the railroad property ought to be assessed. The question between these proprietors of lots and the city was taken to the Supreme Court of the State, in the case of the City of Chicago v. Baer, where it was held (the previous case of Chicago v. Larned, being considered as in principle asserting that doctrine), that the legislature could not constitutionally grant power to the city to make such a contract as had been here granted to the railway company, that it was void, and that, as a consequence, the city was bound to assess the railroad property. A special tax or assessment of $28,677 was now accordingly imposed upon the property of the railway company, and the collection being treatened, one Sheldon, a large stockholder in the company-the company itself having declined to act-filed a bill in the court below to enjoin the collection, and the court enjoined it accordingly. From that decree the city of Chicago brought the case here, the main question being whether under their contract to keep the road for a certain number of feet 'in good condition and repair,' the company could be made to pay for what was a new curbing, grading, and paving, altogether, there being also some minor questions as to the effect of the decisions already mentioned.

To complete the history of the matter in hand, a fact somewhat collateral to it should be mentioned. It is that in 1864, under the authority of the charter of the railway company, the common council entered into another contract with it in respect to laying tracks in other streets. The grant in this new case was made, 'subject to all the restrictions and conditions, rights and privileges in the previous ordinance of the 23d of May, 1859, to the same company, except as herein otherwise provided.' The fifth section provided, as in the first contract, for keeping the eight and sixteen feet of the street in good condition and repair, but it provided further, and in addition, that, when any new improvement, paving, &c., should be ordered by the common council in any of the streets, the railway company should make the improvement the width of the eight or sixteen feet, as the case might be.

Mr. Tuley, for the city, argued—

That a party, and especially a monopoly, setting up exemption from city assessment, should show its privilege under an express contract; such exemption being against common rights, and not to be favored; that, plainly, no such exemption was contracted for here.

That as the Supreme Court of Illinois had jurisdiction of the parties, and had power to decide the subject-matter in controversy in the case of Chicago v. Baer, that decision was final and conclusive; the decision there not coming before this court on writ of error, as required by the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act, if it was to be re-examined; and it being the established doctrine of this court that it will adopt and follow the decisions of the State courts in the construction of their own constitution and statutes, when that construction has been settled by the decisions of its highest judicial tribunal.

That if any prior decisions appeared to authorize the legislature to make contracts commuting the right of specific taxes or assessments, the case just named and that of Chicago v. Larned, had essentially modified them.

That the legislature could not authorize the city of Chicago, and did not mean to authorize it, to make a valid contract by which the railway company would be exempted from the payment of its portion for street improvements, in proportion to the benefits received; which was what the railway corporation did, in fact, pretend was done by the contract set up.

Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Chicago v. Sheldon


text: Talk:Chicago v. Sheldon

title: Talk:Chicago v. Sheldon


text:
Chicago v. Sheldon/Opinion of the Court

It is asserted, on the part of the railway company, that by the true construction of their contract, they are exempt from the assessment made upon their property, and the seventh section of the ordinance of the 23d May, 1859, is referred to and relied on in support of this construction. That section prescribes the obligations and duties of the company in respect to the condition and repairs of the streets during the whole period of the running of the contract, and imposes certain burdens upon it as to repairs, from which, to their extent, the city, or adjoining owners of lots, are relieved. It is insisted that this provision was intended, and so understood by both parties, as regulating the whole subject as it respects improvements of the streets occupied by the company, and to fix in the contract the extent of their liability.

The language of it is somewhat peculiar, and it cannot well be denied but that a fair and reasonable interpretation favors this view. It is as follows: 'The said company shall, as respects the grading, paving, macadamizing, filling, or planking of the streets, or parts of the streets, upon which they shall construct their said railways, or any of them, keep eight feet in width along the line of said railway on all the streets where one track is constructed, and sixteen feet in width along the line of said railway where two tracks are constructed, in good repair and condition.' Now, it is quite clear that the above recitals embrace the whole subject of improvements of the streets, and that it was present to the minds of the parties when entering into the stipulation respecting repairs that followed. And this being so, it is difficult to deny, but that these stipulations were made as fixing the proportion or share of these general improvements which should be imposed in the company, namely, they should keep in good condition and repair eight or sixteen feet, as they used a single or double track, along the entire length of the road. They were not to grade, pave, macadamize, fill, or plank even the above width or distance, except so far as such work came within the category of repairs.

What adds great weight to this view is, it accords with the practical construction given to the contract by both parties. It was entered into, as we have seen, on the 23d May, 1859. Several of these special assessments were authorized subsequently by the common council and collected, but no attempt was made to assess the railroad property of the company. Nor was any question raised as to its exemption till 1866, and not then by the city, but by some of the proprietors of lots fronting on the streets. In cases where the language used by the parties to the contract is indefinite or ambiguous, and, hence, of doubtful construction, the practical interpretation by the parties themselves is entitled to great, if not controlling, influence. The interest of each, generally, leads him to a construction most favorable to himself, and when the difference has become serious, and beyond amicable adjustment, it can be settled only by the arbitrament of the law. But, in an executory contract, and where its execution necessarily involves a practical construction, if the minds of both parties concur, there can be no great danger in the adoption of it by the court as the true one.

There is another consideration in the case entitled to weight in the interpretation of this contract; and that is the language of the contract made between the city and the company in 1864. This ordinance is in pari materia with the one of 1859, and helps to explain any ambiguity in it.

We may add, also, that the learned judge who delivered the opinion of the court, maintaining the liability of this company to the payment of the assessment, does not place his opinion upon the ground that the contract did not exempt it, but that the legislature were disabled by the constitution of the State from conferring any such power on the city. The objection is founded on the clauses of the constitution, which provide that taxes shall be levied so that each person shall pay in proportion to the value of his property; and that where corporate authorities of counties, cities, &c., are authorized to levy and collect taxes for corporate purposes, the taxes shall be uniform in respect to persons and property.

We are not concerned to deal with these provisions, as it is perfectly settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court of the State that, according to the true construction of them, they do not forbid the legislature commuting with individuals or corporate bodies the burdens of general or specific taxes or assessments, of the character of those in question, for what they may deem an equivalent. This has been so frequently decided that we need only refer to the cases. It is supposed by the counsel for the city that this doctrine has been modified by the recent cases of Chicago v. Larned, decided in 1864, and The Same v. Baer, in 1866. But, on looking into these cases, we find no references to the cases above cited, or to the doctrine they maintain. If it were otherwise, however, we could not agree that such decisions could have the effect to invalidate the contract in question. A contract having been entered into between the parties, valid at the time, by the laws of the State, it is not competent even for its legislature to pass an act impairing its obligation, much less could any decision of its courts have that effect.

A point is made, that the legislature have not conferred, or intended to confer, authority upon the city to make this contract. We need only say that full power was not only conferred, but that the contract itself has been since ratified by this body.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

title: Chicago v. Sheldon/Opinion of the Court


text: Talk:Chicago v. Sheldon/Opinion of the Court


text:
United States v. Anderson (76 U.S. 56)

APPEAL from the Court of Claims; the case being this:

Congress, by act of July 13th, 1861, passed soon after the outbreak of the late rebellion, enacted that it might be lawful for the President, by proclamation, to declare that the inhabitants of any State or part of a State where such insurrection was existing were in a state of such insurrection, and that thereupon (with a proviso that the President might, to a limited extent and under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, license it) all 'commercial intercourse by and between the same and citizens thereof, and citizens of the rest of the United States, should cease, and be unlawful so long as such condition of hostility should continue.' By a subsequent act of July, 17th, 1862, it was enacted—

'That to insure the speedy termination of the present rebellion, it shall be the duty of the President of the United States to cause the seizure of all the estate and property, money, stocks, credits, and effects of the persons hereinafter named in this section, and to apply and use the same and the proceeds thereof for the support of the army of the United States.'

The enumeration of persons includes several classes of persons; and the section concludes by declaring that

'All sales, transfers, or conveyances of any such property shall be null and void.'

Another section goes on to say:

'And if any person within any State or Territory of the United States, other than those named as aforesaid, after the passage of this act, being engaged in armed rebellion against the government of the United States, or aiding or abetting such rebellion, shall not within sixty days after public warning and proclamation duly given and made by the President of the United States, cease to aid, countenance, and abet such rebellion, and return to his allegiance to the United States, all the estate and property, money, stocks, and credits of such persons shall be liable to seizure as aforesaid, and it shall be the duty of the President to seize and use them as aforesaid, or the proceeds thereof. And all sales, transfers, or conveyances of any such property, after the expiration of the said sixty days from the date of such warning and proclamation, shall be null and void.'

By a still later act, one passed when the armies of the United States were beginning to march into the rebellious regions the act, namely, of March 12th, 1863 -entitled 'An act to provide for the collection of abandoned property, &c., in insurrectionary districts within the United States,' it was provided as follows:

'And person claiming to have been the owner of any such abandoned or captured property may, at any time within two years after the suppression of the rebellion, prefer his claim to the proceeds thereof in the Court of Claims; and on proof to the satisfaction of said court (1) of his ownership of said property, (2) of his right to the proceeds thereof, and (3) that he has never given any aid or comfort to the present rebellion, receive the residue of such proceeds, after the deduction of any purchase-money which may have been paid, together with the expense of transportation and sale of said property, and any other lawful expenses attending the disposition thereof.'

The time mentioned in this act as that within which a party might prefer his claim, 'any time,' to wit, 'within two years after the suppression of the rebellion,' was one which, as events in the conclusion of the rebellion subsequently proved, was not, to common apprehension, entirely definite. As matter of fact, rebellious districts were brought under the control of the government in different parts of the South at different times, and in April, 1865, the armies of the rebel generals Lee and Johnston surrendered; their surrender being followed by that of Taylor's army, on the 4th of May, and by that of Kirby Smith's, on the 26th of the same month. With this last-named surrender, all armed resistance, in the least formidable, to the authority of the government ceased, and, as matter of fact, the rebellion was prostrate, though rebel cruisers continued their depredations on our commerce, and though there were, in Texas and elsewhere, some wandering bands of robbers. Still, after Kirby Smith's surrender, May 26th, 1865, intercourse, commercial and other, between the inhabitants of the different sections, began to resume itself; trade opened, more or less, on its ancient basis, remittances were made, debts were paid or compromised, and bills of exchange were drawn between the inhabitants of the two sections.

The courts, which, in each section, had been closed to the inhabitants of the other, were soon opened, in form at least. The Court of Claims assumed jurisdiction of cases under the Abandoned Property Act, and between the termination of actual hostilities and the date fixed by the court below as the legal suppression of the rebellion (20th August, 1866), thirty causes were commenced in that court under the act, and jurisdiction of them entertained.

In this court, the causes pending at the beginning of the war to which inhabitants of the States in rebellion were parties, and which had been suspended and postponed from term to term during the continuance of the war, were, at the December Term, 1865, by the order of the court, called and heard in their order on the calendar, or on special days to which they were assigned.

Post-offices were reopened; the letting of contracts for mail service throught the rebellious States resumed; and the revenue system extended throughout the same States.

The Federal courts, too, were reopened in the insurrectionary districts.

But notwithstanding all this, the late rebellious States were not politically restored to the Union, nor were many of them so restored till long afterwards. On the contrary, many of them were kept under military government, in virtue of statutes of the United States known as the reconstruction acts. And the complete status ante bellum was not yet visible.

So far as executive recognitions of the date when the rebellion was to be assumed to have been 'suppressed' were concerned, the government issued three proclamations, one dated June 13th, 1865, in relation to the suppression of the rebellion in Tennessee; another, dated April 2d, 1866, in regard to the suppression of the rebellion in the States of Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Florida; and the third, dated August 20th, 1866, declaring the rebellion suppressed in Texas, 'and throughout the whole of the United States of America.'

And an act of Congress, passed March 2d, 1867, declared that a previous act of Congress, passed June 20th, 1864, to increase the pay of solidiers in the army, should be 'continued in full force and effect for three years after the close of the rebellion, as announced by the President of the United States, by proclamation bearing date August 20th, 1866.'

In this state of enactments, proclamation, and fact, one Anderson, a free man of color, possessed of real and personal property, by occupation a drayman and cotton sampler, and a resident of Charleston, South Carolina, preferred, on the 5th of June, 1868, to the Court of Claims, under the provisions of the already-mentioned 'Abandoned Property Act' of 1863, as it was familiarly styled, a claim for the residue of the proceeds of some cotton.

Twenty days after Anderson preferred his claim to the Court of Claims-that is to say, on the 25th June, 1868-Congress passed a law,

'That no plaintiff, or claimant, or any person, from or through whom any such plaintiff or claimant derives his alleged title, claim or right against the United States, or any person interested in any such title, claim, or right, shall be a competent witness in the Court of Claims in supporting any such title, claim, or right.'

When the matter came on afterwards to be heard, Anderson proved this case (proving it, in part, by two persons, the one named Fleming, and the other Doucen, who resided within the insurrectionary district, and from whom he had bought the cotton), the case, to wit, that he had bought part of the cotton in the early part of the war, and the rest in the autumn of 1864, before the evacuation of Charleston by the rebels; that on the 5th March, 1865, the military authorities of the United States being now in possession of Charleston, he reported it to them, and that on the 5th of April following, it was removed, under their direction, from its place of deposit to the Charleston custom-house, whence it was shipped to New York, and there sold for the United States, and the gross proceeds paid into the treasury; the net proceeds amounting to $6723. The loyalty of Fleming and Doucen, from whom the cotton was purchased, was not proven, but that of Anderson was, and that he had never given any aid or comfort to the rebellion, or to the persons who were engaged in it.

In the Court of Claims, the counsel for the government urged four principal grounds of objection to the allowance of the claim.

1st. That the action was barred by the limitation in the statute of March 12th, 1863.

2d. That if in this they were mistaken, still that the suit must fail, because the persons who sold the property to Anderson, being residents of an insurrectionary district, were unable, under the state of the law on this subject, to convey title to him.

3d. That the vendors of the cotton in question were incompetent witnesses, by reason of the act of 25th June, 1865, and that their testimony should have been excluded.

4th. That the court had no authority to render judgment for a specific sum, its power being limited to the point of deciding whether the claimant was entitled to recover at all, leaving the amount to be determined by computation by the proper officers of the Treasury Department.

But the Court of Claims held:

1st. That the claim was not barred by the limitation mentioned

2d. That the cotton had not been ipso facto forfeited because it had belonged to persons resident in the insurrectionary district, no proceedings having been instituted to confiscate the same as the property of such persons.

3d. That the vendors of the property were not incompetent witnesses.

4th. That upon the whole case the claimant was entitled to judgment for the net proceeds as proved.

The correctness of these several rulings was the matter now here for review.

Mr. Hoar, Attorney-General, and Mr. R. S. Hale, special counsel, for the United States:

1. Was Anderson's claim, which was preferred on the 5th of June, 1868, preferred at any time within two years after the suppression of the rebellion?

The question when a suppression of the rebellion was made is a question of the actual termination of the war, and one distinct from the political question of the continuance of the rights of war, after the termination in fact of hostilities. The true test of the existence of civil war was tersely stated by Grier, J., speaking for the court in the Prize Cases. 'When the regular course of justice is interrupted by revolt, rebellion, or insurrection, so that the courts of justice cannot be kept open, civil war exists,' &c. The test of its termination is logically the same. When the armed organization against the government has ceased, to exist, when the courts of justice are no longer prevented by violence, there is no longer civil war, and the rebellion is suppressed. Now, after the surrender of Kirby Smith, armed resistance to the authority of the United States ceased, the civil war was ended, and the rebellion suppressed, as matter of fact. In the universal speech of the people, 'the war was over.' This is an historical fact, of which this court will take judicial cognizance. Their own proceedings and the call of their docket show it. But the fact is part of public history, and universally known. From that date, all claimants were entitled to sue in the Court of Claims, under the act of 12th March, 1863, and at the expiration of two years from that date (26th May, 1867), their right to sue terminated. The claim was therefore too late.

The various proclamations of the President did not create the condition of peace, but were executive recognitions of the fact that peace was restored, just as the actions of the courts were judicial recognitions of the same fact.

But if executive action is requisite to establish the fact of the suppression of the rebellion, then the proclamation of April 2d, 1866, does it as respects South Carolina; and the cause of action having arisen in that State the statute began to run whenever the rebellion was suppressed there. If this is so, the claim is still too late.

As to the act of Congress of March 2d, 1867, its object was not to determine the end of the rebellion, either for judicial or legislative purposes, but to fix a definite time when the additional pay given to soldiers by the act of 20th June, 1864, should terminate. And it does not, in terms, fix the end of the rebellion; but fixes the desired day by recital from 'the close of the rebellion, as announced by the President,' &c. To give to it the effect of fixing the close of the rebellion for the purposes of the Abandoned and Captured Property Act, or for any other judicial or legislative purpose, would be to give it an effect not contemplated by Congress.

2. The loyalty of Fleming and Doucen, who sold the cotton to Anderson, is not proven. They resided in South Carolina, and such residence fixes on them, in the absence of proof of loyalty, rebel character. Sales by them, under the act of July 17th, 1862, are 'null and void.' Nor is the act of 1862 repealed by the Abandoned and Captured Property Act. These acts are to a limited extent in pari materia, and are so far to be construed by the aid of each other. But in their principal scope they relate to different subjects, provide for different ends, and contain no provisions inconsistent with each other, so that both cannot stand. The proof of ownership required under the latter act is of necessity lawful ownership, as well under the act of 1862 as under all other subsisting laws.

But this is no longer an open question in this court since the case of McKee v. United States. The language of the court is:

'This statute prohibited a person occupying the position A. W. McKee did from selling his property; and it follows, as he had no capacity to dispose of it, that the claimant could acquire no title to it.'

[The remaining two points taken below, though still insisted on, were less pressed by the learned counsel here.]

Messrs. J. A. Wills, G. Taylor, T. J. D. Fuller, A. G. Riddle, and W. P. Clarke, contra, for the claimant in this case, or for claimants in other cases involving the same general questions, and argued with this one and disposed of by the opinion in it.

Mr. Justice DAVIS delivered the opinion of the court.

title: United States v. Anderson (76 U.S. 56)


text: Talk:United States v. Anderson (76 U.S. 56)


text:
United States v. Anderson (76 U.S. 56)/Opinion of the Court

Whether the positions taken by the learned counsel of the United States in the court below, and maintained in this court also, are well taken or not depends on the construction to be given the act concerning abandoned and captured property, and the 4th section of the act of June 25th, 1868.

The act of March 12th, 1863, in one particular, inaugurated a policy different from that which induced the passage of other measures rendered necessary by the obstinacy and magnitude of the resistance to the supremacy of the National authority. To overcome this resistance, and to carry on the war successfully, the entire people of the States in rebellion were considered as public enemies; but it is familiar history that there were many persons whom necessity required should be treated as enemies who were friends, and adhered with fidelity to the National cause. This class of people, compelled to live among those who were combined to overthrow the Federal authority, and liable at all times to be stripped of their property by the usurped government, were objects of sympathy to the loyal people of this country, and their unfortunate condition was appreciated by Congress.

During the progress of the war it was expected that our forces in the field would capture property, and, as the enemy retreated, that property would remain in the country without apparent ownership, which should be collected and disposed of. In this condition of things Congress acted. While providing for the disposition of this captural and abandoned property, Congress recognized the status of the loyal Southern people, and distinguished between property owned by them, and the property of the disloyal. It was not required to do this, for all the property obtained in this manner could, by proper proceedings, have been appropriated to the necessities of the war. But Congress did not think proper to do this. In a spirit of liberality it constituted the government a trustee for so much of this property as belonged to the faithful Southern people, and while directing that all of it should be sold and its proceeds paid into the treasury, gave to this class of persons an opportunity, at any time within two years after the suppression of the rebellion, to bring their suit in the Court of Claims, and establish their right to the proceeds of that portion of it which they owned, requiring from them nothing but proof of loyalty and ownership.

It is true the liberality of Congress in this regard was not confined to Southern owners, for the law is general in its terms, and protects all loyal owners; but the number of Northern citizens who could, in any state of the case, be bon a fide owners of this kind of property was necessarily few, and their condition, although recognized in the law, did not induce Congress to incorporate in it the provision we are considering.

The measure, in itself of great beneficence, was practically important only in its application to the loyal Southern people, and sympathy for their situation doubtless prompted Congress to pass it. It is in view of this state of things, as it is the duty of a court in construing a law to consider the circumstances under which it was passed and the object to be accomplished by it, that we are called upon to apply this particular provision to the facts of this case. The loyalty of the claimant is not questioned, but his ownership, in the sense of the law, of the property in dispute is denied.

It is not denied that he purchased the property in good faith for value, and with no purpose to defraud the government or any one else; but it is said the persons from whom he bought resided in South Carolina, were presumed to be rebels, and were, therefore, prohibited from selling.

This is an attempt to import from the confiscation law of July 17th, 1862, into this law, a disability which it does not contain. If this could be done, but very little benefit would accrue to the loyal people of the South from the privilege conferred on them by the law in question. It is well known that nearly all the Southern people were engaged in the rebellion, and that those who were not thus employed furnished the exception rather than the rule. Few as they were, the necessities of life required that they should buy and sell, and, equally so, that their trading should be free and unrestricted.

This condition of things Congress was aware of, and if it had been its purpose to limit the privilege in controversy to the loyal citizen, who happened to acquire his property from another person equally loyal, they would have said so. But Congress had no such narrow policy in view. It policy in the matter was broad and comprehensive, and embraced within its range all persons who had adhered to the Union. It treated all alike, and did not discriminate in favor of the person who could trace his title through a loyal source, and against him who was not so fortunate. It did not consider the loyal planter, who raised his own cotton and rice, as entitled to any more protection than the dweller in the cities and towns who lived by traffic, and bought where he could buy the cheapest.

The confiscation law, however, was not intended to apply to a person occupying the status of this claimant. The purpose which Congress had in view in passing that law was very different from that which induced it, in the Captured and Abandoned Property Act, to extend a privilege to the loyal owner. The confiscation law concerns rebels and their property; was intended as a measure to cripple their resources; and, in so far as it claims the right to seize and condemn their property, as a punishment for their crimes, recognizes that certain legal proceedings are necessary to do so. But by the act in question the government yielded its right to seize and condemn the property which it took in the enemy's country if it belonged to a faithful citizen, and substantially said to him, 'We are obliged to take the property of friend and foe alike, which we will sell and deposit the proceeds of in the treasury; and if, at any time within two years after the suppression of the rebellion, you prove satisfactorily that of the property thus taken you owned a part, we will pay you the net amount received from its sale.'

The two acts cannot be construed in pari materi a. The one is penal, the other remedial; the one claims a right, the other concedes a privilege.

It is said the vendors of the cotton were incompetent witnesses by reason of the 4th section of the act of June 25th, 1868, which declares that no plaintiff or claimant, or any person from or through whom any such plaintiff or claimant derives his alleged title, claim, or right against the United States, or any person interested in any such title, claim, or right, shall be a competent witness in the Court of Claims in supporting any such title, claim, or right.

There are three classes of persons who are, by this section, prohibited from testifying. The claimant cannot testify, nor can the person who, after a claim has accrued to him against the United States, has sold or transferred it to the claimant, nor can any one who is interested in the event of the suit. Doucen and Fleming, the immediate vendors of Anderson, are not excluded by this rule. They were not interested in the suit, and in no sense did Anderson derive his claim against the United States through them. They never had any claim against the United States, because when the property was taken it belonged to Anderson, and it is only after the property was sold that Anderson's claim even to the proceeds attached. If the property in transitu from Charleston to New York had been lost, no claim could arise under the law in favor of Anderson against the United States, his claim being contingent upon the proceeds of the property finally reaching the treasury.

But the point most pressed in the argument against the right to recover in this case relates to the limitation in the law. It is contended that the claim was barred by this limitation, as it was not preferred until the 5th of June, 1868. It is, therefore, necessary to determine when the time for preferring claims commenced, and when it ended. The words of the statute on this subject are, that any person claiming to be the owner of abandoned or captured property may, at any time within two years after the suppression of the rebellion, prefer his claim to the proceeds thereof in the Court of Claims. There is certainly nothing in the words of this provision which disables a person from preferring his claim immediately after the proceeds of his property have reached the treasury, and there is no good reason why a different interpretation should be given them. On the contrary, there is sufficient reason in the nature of the legislation on this subject, apart from the letter of the law, to bring the mind to the conclusion that Congress intended to give the claimant an immediate right of action. The same motive that prompted Congress to grant the privilege to prefer a claim at all, operated to allow it to be done so soon as the property had been converted into money. If in the condition of the country, it was known that the Union men of the South, as a general thing, would be unable to prosecute their claims while the war lasted, still it was recognized that some persons might be fortunate enough to do so, and to meet the requirements of their cases the right to sue at once was conferred. In the progress of the war, as our armies advanced and were able to afford protection to the Union people, it was expected that many of them, availing themselves of the opportunity, would escape into the National lines, and be thus in a condition to secure the rights conceded to them by this statute; and the history of the times informs us that this expectation was realized. To impute to Congress a design to compel these people, impoverished as they were known to be, to wait until the war was over before they could institute proceedings in the Court of Claims, would be inconsistent with the general spirit of the statute, and cannot be entertained. If, then, the right to prefer a claim attached as soon as the money reached the treasury, when did it expire? The law says two years after the rebellion was suppressed; but the question recurs, when is the rebellion to be considered suppressed, as regards the rights intended to be secured by this statute? It is very clear that the limitation applied to the entire suppression of the rebellion, and that no one was intended to be affected by its suppression in any particular locality. It might be suppressed in one State and not in another, but the citizen of the State that had ceased hostilities was in no better or worse position in this regard than the citizen of the State where hostilities were active. The limitation was not partial in its character, but operated on all persons alike who are affected by it; was dependent on the solution of a great problem, and an interpretation of it which would prescribe one rule for the people of one State, and a different rule for those living in another State, cannot be allowed to prevail.

The point, therefore, for determination is, when, in the sense of this law, was the rebellion entirely suppressed. And in this connection it is proper to say, that the purposes of this suit do not require us to discuss the question-which may have an important bearing on other cases-whether the rebellion can be considered as suppressed for one purpose and not for another, nor any of the kindred questions arising out of it, and we therefore express no opinion on the subject.

The inquiry with which we have to deal concerns its suppression only in its relation to those persons who are within the protection of this law. It is argued, as the rebellion was in point of fact suppressed when the last Confederate general surrendered to the National authority, that the limitation began to run from that date. If this were so, there is an end to the controversy; but did Congress mean, when it passed the statute in question, that the Union men of the South, whose interests are especially cared for by it, should, without any action by Congress or the Executive on the subject, take notice of the day that armed hostilities ceased between the contending parties, and if they did not present their claims within two years of that time, be forever barred of their recovery? The inherent difficulty of determining such a matter, renders it certain that Congress did not intend to impose on this class of persons the necessity of deciding it for themselves. In a foreign war, a treaty of peace would be the evidence of the time when it closed, but in a domestic war, like the late one, some public proclamation or legislation would seem to be required to inform those whose private rights were affected by it, of the time when it terminated, and we are of the opinion that Congress did not intend that the limitation in this act should begin to run until this was done. There are various acts of Congress and proclamations of the President bearing on the subject, but in the view we take of this case, it is only necessary to notice the proclamation of the President, of August 20th, 1866, and the act of Congress of the 2d of March, 1867.

On the 20th day of August, 1866, the President of the United States, after reciting certain proclamations and acts of Congress concerning the rebellion, and his proclamation of 2d of April, 1866, that armed resistance had ceased everywhere except in the State of Texas, did proclaim that it had ceased there also, and that the whole insurrection was at an end, and that peace, order, and tranquillity existed throughout the whole of the United States of America. This is the first official declaration that we have, on the part of the Executive, that the rebellion was wholly suppressed, and we have shown, in a previous part of this opinion, that the limitation, in its effects on the persons whose rights we are considering, did not begin to run until the rebellion was suppressed throughout the whole country. But we are not without the action of the legislative department of the government on this subject. On the 20th day of June, 1864, Congress fixed the pay of non-commissioned officers and privates, and declared that it should continue during the rebellion; and on the 2d day of March 1867, it continued this act in force for three years from and after the close of the rebellion, as announced by the proclamation of the President.

Congress, then, having adopted the 20th day of August, 1866, in conformity with the announcement of the President, as the day the rebellion closed, for the purpose of regulating the pay of non-commissioned officers and privates, can it be supposed that it intended to lay down a harsher rule for the guidance of the claimants under the Captured and Abandoned Property Act, than it thought proper to apply to another class of persons whose interests it equally desired to protect. In order to reach this conclusion, it is necessary to ascribe to Congress a policy regarding the statute under which this claim is preferred foreign to the views we have expressed concerning it. Besides, it would require us to construe two acts differently, although relating to the same general subject, in the absence of any evidence that such was the intention of the legislature. If we are right as to the motive which prompted Congress to pass the law in question, and the object to be accomplished by it, it is clear the point of time should be construed most favorably to the person who adhered to the National Union, and who has proved the government took his property, and has the money arising from its sale in the treasury.

As Congress, in its legislation for the army, has determined that the rebellion closed on the 20th day of August, 1866, there is no reason why its declaration on this subject should not be received as settling the question wherever private rights are affected by it. That day will, therefore, be accepted as the day when the rebellion was suppressed, as respects the rights intended to be secured by the Captured and Abandoned Property Act.

The point taken that the court below was not authorized to render judgment for a specific sum, but only to determine whether the claimant was entitled to receive the proceeds of his property, leaving it for an officer of the treasury to fix the amount, cannot be sustained. To sustain this position, would require us to hold that for this class of cases Congress intended to constitute the Court of Claims a mere commission. This court will not attribute to Congress a purpose that would lead to such a result, in the absence of an express declaration to that effect.

It is proper to say, in conclusion, that the case of McKee v. United States, cited as an authority against the claimant's right to recover, has no application whatever to this case.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

Soon after judgment was rendered in the case which precedes, was decided also another case under the same acts of Congress, but presenting a state of facts distinguishing it from that case. It was the case of


text: Talk:United States v. Anderson (76 U.S. 56)/Opinion of the Court


text:
United States v. Grossmayer

THIS case, like the one immediately preceding, was an appeal from the Court of Claims, and was thus:

Elias Einstein, a resident of Macon, Georgia, was indebted, when the late rebellion broke out, to Grossmayer, a resident of New York, for goods sold and money lent, and while the war was in progress a correspondence on the subject was maintained through the medium of a third person, who passed back and forth several times between Macon and New York. The communication between the parties resulted in Grossmayer requesting Einstein to remit the amount due him in money or sterling exchange, or, if that were not possible, to invest the sum in cotton and hold it for him until the close of the war.

In pursuance of this direction-and, as it is supposed, because money or sterling exchange could not be transmitted Einstein purchased cotton for Grossmayer, and informed him of it; Grossmayer expressing himself satisfied with the arrangement. The cotton was afterwards shipped as Grossmayer's to one Abraham Einstein, at Savannah, who stored it there in his own name, in order to prevent its seizure by the rebel authorities. It remained in store in this manner until the capture of Savannah, in December, 1864, by the armies of the United States, when it was reported to our military forces as Grossmayer's cotton, and taken by them and sent to New York and sold.

Grossmayer now preferred a claim in the Court of Claims for the residue of the proceeds, asserting that he was within the protection of the Captured and Abandoned Property Act.

That court considering that the purchase by Elias Einstein for Grossmayer was not a violation of the war intercourse acts set forth in the preceding case, decided that he was so, and gave judgment in his favor. The United States appealed.

Mr. George Taylor, for Grossmayer, and in support of the judgment below:

The cotton, the proceeds of which are in question, was purchased during the rebellion, by an agent of the claimants, residing within the Confederacy, and therefore was not a violation of the Non-intercourse Act; it being a settled principle of public law that a citizen of a country at war with another may have an agent in the enemy's country, and may enforce the contracts or accept the beneficial acts of his agent after peace; and, in this respect, he may do by an agent what he could not do himself.

Even if the messages from Grossmayer to his agent were illegal, and no authority were given to the agent, yet the agent had a right, voluntarily on his own motion, to purchase and appropriate this property to his creditor, and by the appropriation of it, and the shipment of it to Savannah for storage for him, the title passed, subject only to the ratification of Grossmayer.

The case shows that the purchase was ratified by Grossmayer. Claiming the cotton, and instituting suit for it, is itself a ratification. This ratification reverts back, and is equivalent to a previous permission or command.

Mr. Hoar, Attorney-General, and Mr. R. S. Hale, special counsel for the United States, contra.

Mr. Justice DAVIS delivered the opinion of the court.

title: United States v. Grossmayer


text: Talk:United States v. Grossmayer

title: Talk:United States v. Grossmayer


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

Grossmayer insists that he is within the protection of the Captured and Abandoned Property Act, but it is hard to see on what ground he can base this claim for protection. It was natural that Grossmayer should desire to be paid, and creditable to Einstein to wish to discharge his obligation to him, but the same thing can be said of very many persons who were similarly situated during the war, and if all persons in this condition had been allowed to do what was done in this case, it is easy to see that it would have produced great embarrassment and obstructed very materially the operations of the army. It has been found necessary, as soon as war is commenced, that business intercourse should cease between the citizens of the respective parties engaged in it, and this necessity is so great that all writers on public law agree that it is unlawful, without any express declaration of the sovereign on the subject.

But Congress did not wish to leave any one in ignorance of the effect of war in this regard, for as early as the 13th of June, 1861, it passed a Non-intercourse Act, which prohibited all commercial intercourse between the States in insurrection and the rest of the United States. It is true the President could allow a restricted trade, if he thought proper; but in so far as he did allow it, it had to be conducted according to regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury.

There is no pretence, however, that this particular transaction was authorized by any one connected with the Treasury Department, and it was, therefore, not only inconsistent with the duties growing out of a state of war, but in open violation of a statute on the subject. A prohibition of all intercourse with an enemy during the war affects debtors and creditors on either side, equally with those who do not bear that relation to each other. We are not disposed to deny the doctrine that a resident in the territory of one of the belligerents may have, in time of war, an agent residing in the territory of the other, to whom his debtor could pay his debt in money, or deliver to him property in discharge of it, but in such a case the agency must have been created before the war began, for there is no power to appoint an agent for any purpose after hostilities have actually commenced, and to this effect are all the authorities. The reason why this cannot be done is obvious, for while the war lasts nothing which depends on commercial intercourse is permitted. In this case, if Einstein is to be considered as the agent of Grossmayer to buy the cotton, the act appointing him was illegal, because it was done by means of a direct communication through a messenger who was in some manner not stated in the record able to pass, during the war, between Macon and New York. It was not necessary to make the act unlawful that Grossmayor should have communicated personally with Einstein. The business intercourse through a middle man, which resulted in establishing the agency, is equally within the condemnation of the law.

Besides, if, as is conceded, Grossmayer was prohibited from trading directly with the enemy, how can the purchase in question be treated as lawful when it was made for him by an agent appointed after his own disability to deal at all with the insurgents was created?

It is argued that the purchase by Einstein was ratified by Grossmayer, and that being so the case is relieved of difficulty; but this is a mistaken view of the principle of ratification, for a transaction originally unlawful cannot be made any better by being ratified.

In any aspect of this case, whether the relation of debtor and creditor continued, or was changed to that of principal and agent, the claimant cannot recover.

As he was prohibited during the war from having any dealings with Einstein, it follows that nothing which both or either of them did in this case could have the effect to vest in him the title to the cotton in question.

Not being the owner of the property he has no claim against the United States.

The judgment of the Court of Claims is REVERSED, and the cause is remanded to that court with directions to enter an order

DISMISSING THE PETITION.


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