Adler v. United States

delivered the opinion of the court:

The petitioner claims the net proceeds of 77 bales of upland cotton and nine hogsheads of sugar, and the court finds the facts to be :

That about the 14th of April, 1863, the petitioner was a citizen of New Iberia, in the State of Louisiana, and owned and was in possession of 73 bales of cotton and nine hogsheads of sugar.

That the United States troops took possession of and occupied said New Iberia, and an order was issued by General Banks, commanding the department of the Gulf, giving public notice that the government would pay for such property, its actual value at the time and place where it was found when our forces took possession of the country.

That the said 73 bales of cotton were, under general orders from headquarters, captured and seized at New Iberia and taken from the possession of the petitioner by the Uifited States and sold by themj *383tbe net proceeds thereof, amounting to $13,333 09, were paid into the treasury.

That the taking and disposition of the sugar by the United States were not satisfactorily proved.

That the petitioner was a loyal citizen of the United States, who has never given aid or comfort to the rebellion.

And, on the facts stated, the court find that the petitioner is entitled to receive for the net proceeds of said 73 bales of cotton the sum of $13,333 09, and judgment will be entered and certified to him therefor.

dissenting:

I do not think the claimant is an owner of captured property within the meaning of the “ Abandoned or captured property act.” He appears to have brought out these products from the enemy’s country under an agreement with the commanding general of the department, which, in terms, authorized the defendants to become the purchasers for “ its actual vafoie at the time and place where it was found when our forces took possession of the country.” This “ actual value” appears to have been for the cotton 18 cents per pound, and for the sugar five cents. To that extent the claimant should recover, and not for the net proceeds of the cotton under the act.

This property, it is also to be noted, was taken from the claimant by the defendant’s quartermaster at the place of its purchase — that is, at the extreme front, and where it was liable to recaptuie. At that place, and under these circumstances, its actual value fell very far short of the net proceeds after the defendants had run the risk of bringing it out. The claimant also deemed his rights limited by the order or agreement of General Banks, and he sought payment thereunder. I think, therefore, that the action should be deemed to have been brought upon that agreement, and to be subject to all the restrictions of the act reconstituting this court, (3d March, 1863, 12 Stat. L., p. 765,) including that of appeal to the Supreme Court, and that judgment should be rendered accordingly.