Cutner v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States
Cutner v. United States, 84 U.S. 517 (1873)
Bkadley

Cutner v. United States

Opinion of the Court

,Mr. Justice BKADLEY

delivered the opinion of the court.

Intercourse between the inhabitants of the two belligerent sections was still prohibited when this sale was made. It was, therefore, clearly illegal, unless Schiffer & Co. had a license to trade in Savannah, which the case expressly finds they had not. The sale being illegal, the suit cannot be sustained for the benefit of the vendees. It cannot be sustained for Cutner’s own'benefit, because he received the full consideration of the cotton and has no interest- remaining.

Decree affirmed. ,

Reference

Cited By
1 case
Status
Published
Syllabus
1. A sale made without “ a license to trade,” by a loyal citizen of the United States, on the 6th of March, 1865, when Savannah was occupied by the Federal troops, to a loyal citizen of New York, of cotton which had been returned by the owner, registered, and taken into possession by the United States, and sent for sale to New York under the Captured and Abandoned Property Act, held void, although the bill of sale of the cotton authorized the attorney of the vendors to receive the proceeds of sale and pay them to the vendees, and was thus argued to have been not a sale of the cotton at Savannah, Georgia, but a sale of claim in Washington, D. C. This was apparently decided under the act of July 13th, 1861, prohibiting and making unlawful “ all commercial intercourse between the inhabitants of any State proclaimed to be in a state of insurrection against the United States, and the citizens of the rest of the United States, so long as such condition of hostility should continue;” and the act of July 2dj 1864, making the prohibition applicable to all commercial intercourse to persons being within districts within the lines of National military occupation in such States. 2. Held further, the full consideration-money of the purchase having been paid, that the vendor could not sustain a suit in the Court of Claims for the proceeds of the cotton, for the use of the vendee; that the vendor was not entitled to sue for himself, because he had been paid in full; nor entitled to sue for his vendee, because the sale was unlawful and void.