his assurances that he should not be the loser, | doubt that the award would have been binding he went on and furnished supplies to a large and conclusive? I think not. amount. For these supplies he claimed large allowance beyond the amount stipulated in his contract. The petition then states as follows: "But your petitioners state that the officers of the Treasury, feeling themselves bound only by what appeared of record in the department, allowed the said Piatt, in the settlement of his account for rations furnished after the first day of January, 1815, no more than the original contract price per ration; under these circumstances he brought his claim before the Secretary of War, Mr. Crawford, who would have settled it on the principles for which the said Piatt then contended, and which your petitioners now claim to be legal and just, but that, by reason of what he considered countervailing evidence, he had doubts whether such assurances had ever been given. Thus it is seen that there were two sides to the question at that early day, when all the events were fresh, and when Mr. Monroe was living at the seat of government, and accessible at any moment.

a The present case is stronger. Congress proposed to allow Piatt a settlement of his claim by the Treasury Department, in which due weight and consideration should be given to the assurances in question, provided that the sum allowed under them should not exceed the amount claimed by the United States against him, and for which suit had been commenced. He accepted the law, had the benefit of the settlement, and was allowed under the assurances the amount named, which justly canceled the debt for which he was sued and arrested by the Government. Thereupon he was discharged. The declaration of Congress, thus made binding by the acts of the party, that nothing should be allowed against the Government on that claim beyond a certain amount named, was equivalent to a solemn adjudication. It amounted to a declaration of the Government that it would not suffer itself to be pursued or molested for a greater sum. Can it now be contended that the Act of 1855 constituting the Court of Claims and allowing suits to be brought against the Government on contracts made with it, has opened this adjudicationthis settlement and determination of the case? In my judgment, certainly not. The Act constituting the Court of Claims was not intended to disturb past adjudications *and [*513 settlements, and to open afresh claims that had been disposed of. The Court of Claims had no right to go behind the final settlement, and attempt to establish the original facts of the case. Its findings of fact, in this respect, were illegal and void. The Government has never consented to be sued on this claim, or on any claims similarly situated.

In 1820, Piatt was arrested for $48,230.77, the balance found due to the Government in his accounts, as ascertained by the settlement at the department. He then brought his claim before Congress, and the Judiciary Committee of the Senate reported adversely thereto. But on the 8th of May an Act was passed for his relief, to wit:

"An Act for the relief of John H. Piatt. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled, That the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department be, and they are hereby authorized and required to settle the accounts of John H. Piatt, including his accounts for transportation, on just and equitable principles, giving all due weight and consideration to the settlements and allowances already made, and to the assurances and decisions of the War Department; provided that the sum allowed under the said assurances shall not exceed the amount now claimed by the United States, and for which suits have been commenced against the said John H. Piatt."

Thereupon his accounts were restated under the provisions of the Act; and the officers of the department, after allowing him the sum of $63,620.48 for provisions furnished to friendly Indians and to distressed settlers of Michigan (which was entirely outside of his contract, and was afterwards paid in full), allowed him 512*] a credit on the footing of the assurances of Mr. Monroe for $48,230.77, the full amount of the claim for which he had been arrested. He was thereupon discharged from custody on the 25th of July, 1820, and died in February, 1822. The present claim is prosecuted by his representatives.

Upon these facts it seems difficult to resist the conviction that in the contemplation of both parties (Piatt and the Government), this case was then and there forever ended and determined. Between individuals it must necessarily have been so. Had such a disputed and doubtful claim been held by one man against another, and left to arbitration, subject to the condition that no sum should be awarded beyond a certain amount, and had that amount been awarded and accepted, can there be a

The conclusion of law to which the court

came, I think, was correct, and the decree should be affirmed.

Mr. Justice Swayne, Mr. Justice Davis and Mr. Justice Hunt, concur in this opinion.

*UNITED STATES, Appts., [*180

v.

C. V. WOODRUFF and A. Bouchard, Julia
A. Nutt, Exrx. of Haller Nutt, Mary A.
Wells et al.;

BESSIE ELGEE GAUSSEN, Exrx. of John
K. Elgee, Deceased, Appt.,

v.

UNITED STATES.

C. V. WOODRUFF & COMPANY, Appt.,

v.

UNITED STATES;

JULIA A. NUTT, Exrx. of Haller Nutt,
Deceased, Appt.,

V.

UNITED STATES.

(See S. C., "The Elgee Cotton Cases," 22 Wall., 180-198.)

Captured and Abandoned Property Act-contract of sale-when title passes-who may

sue.

proceeds of captured or abandoned property, unless 1. No one can sue in the Court of Claims for the he can prove his ownership of the property seized; his right to the proceeds thereof; and that he never gave aid or comfort to the rebellion.

2. A contract of sale will not pass the ownership of cotton at once to the buyer, where there is no

Argued Apr. 9, 12, 13, 14, 1875. Decided May ceeds of said cotton, with the interest thereon 3, 1875.

sale, Lobdell employed one Morris to watch | & Chambers, and also to pay over to said and take care of the cotton.

In October, 1863, Haller Nutt employed one Holmes to go from Natchez, then in possession of the Union forces, into the territory of the Confederacy, to purchase cotton. Nutt procured, from the military authorities at Natchez, permits for Holmes to go on this agency. In the same month Holmes, as agent of Nutt, contracted with Elgee for the sale of so much of the cotton as he should get out in safety to a market, for the price of £15 per bale, to be paid at Liverpool. The risk of the cotton, until got out, to be on Elgee.

Oct. 8, 1863, Elgee delivered to Holmes the following writing:

"ALEXANDRIA, October 8th, 1863. DEAR SIR: It having been agreed on between you and myself that I sell to you all the cotton of Elgee and Chambers now baled and under shed, for the price of 15 pounds sterling per bale payable in Liverpool, you will cause the same to be placed at my credit with James Jackson & Co., at Liverpool.

Yours, J. K. ELGEE.

CAPT. TRUMAN HOLMES,

Present." The following was indorsed on this writing: "Having been notified by Mr. J. K. Elgee of the sale of the within cotton to Mr. T. C. Holmes, I hereby ratify and confirm the same as agent for Elgee and Chambers.

(April 5, W. C. G.)

W. C. GORDON.

CAPTAIN HOLMES." After the making of the contract between Elgee and Holmes for sale of the cotton, Elgee wrote to Gordon, and after stating that Holmes had been at Alexandria and negotiated for the cotton, provided he complied with the agreement between them, and that two months had elapsed and he had not heard from Holmes, he (Elgee) desired Gordon to say to Holmes that the agreement between Elgee and Holmes was at an end. In the spring of 1864 Holmes exhibited to Gordon the above writing, and Gordon then communicated to Holmes the message above stated.

Mar. 15, 1864, Woodruff & Co. and Lobdell, by his duly authorized agent, Hebert, made the following contract:

"NEW ORLEANS, March 15, 1864.

Hebert the further sum of $200,000, or the sum of twenty cents per pound currency, for account of C. S. Lobdell; and in case the quantity of cotton should fall short, then there shall be paid ten cents per pound for account of said Elgee & Chambers, and twenty cents per pound for account of C. S. Lobdell, for such amount or quantity of cotton as shall be received from said Elgee and Chambers; and it is understood by vote of these contracting parties that this cotton belongs to Mr. Lobdell until the consideration of thirty cents per pound upon the cotton shall be paid, viz.: ten cents per pound to or for account of Elgee and Chambers and twenty cents to or for account of said Lobdell, as aforesaid."

This contract had the same indorsement as the one first above set out. At the time of making this contract Lobdell, Woodruff and Bouchard were citizens and residents of New Orleans, then loyal territory, and the cotton was as theretofore on the Felter's plantation, and Morris had the custody thereof and was informed of its sale by Lobdell to Woodruff & Co., and thereafter continued such custody as he exercised before.

Apr. 2, 1864, 572 bales of this cotton was seized by Camp as above mentioned. The remainder of the cotton is stated to have been destroyed by raiding forces of the Confederates. It is unnecessary to trace the further history of the 572 bales of cotton, except to say that it was finally sold and the proceeds deposited in the Treasury.

May 2, 1864, Elgee took and subscribed the oath prescribed by the President's Proclamation of Dec. 8, 1863. Lobdell, Woodruff and Bouchard have always borne true allegiance to the United States and have never voluntarily aided, abetted or given encouragement to rebellion against the government thereof.

It may be added that in June, 1864, Elgee brought a replevin suit against the agent of the United States in possession of the cotton. Judgment was rendered against him in the Circuit Court. for the District of Missouri and was affirmed in this court.

The Court of Claims made the following conclusions of law:

those beneficially interested therein, according to their respective interests.

That by and from the date of the contract made July 31, 1863, by Elgee and Chambers, through their agent, Gordon, with Charles S. Lobdell, the right of property in the 2,100 bales of cotton therein specified was vested in said Lobdell and a right to the price at ten cents per pound, with a lien therefor on said cotton, was vested in said Elgee and Chambers. The weight of so much of the cotton as was lost to the parties or was destroyed before weighing to be taken at five hundred pounds per bale.

That the United States hold the net proThis contract made this 15th day of March,|ceeds of said 572 bales of cotton as trustee for 1864, between C. S. Lobdell, of the Parish of West Baton Rouge in the State of Louisiana, and C. V. Woodruff, of the City of New Orleans, witnesses: that Mr. C. S. Lobdell has sold this day to C. V. Woodruff & Co. a certain contract of which he is the owner and possessor, for the delivery of 2,100 bales of cotton sold to said Lobdell by Elgee and Chambers by their agent W. C. Gordon, of the County of Wilkinson in the State of Mississippi, as will appear by reference to said contract; and the said C. V. Woodruff & Co., of New Orleans, as aforesaid, hereby agree to pay to Mr. W. C. Gordon, the agent of Messrs. Elgee & Chambers, at the time of receiving the said cotton, the sum of $100,000, or ten cents per pound currency; and in case of not being able from any cause to pay said Gordon, then said C. V. Woodruff & Co. agree to pay said sum of $100,000, or ten cents per pound, to Mr. Victor Hebert, of Number 47 Common Street, New Orleans, for account of said Elgee

That the contract made Mar. 15, 1864, between Lobdell and C. V. Woodruff & Co. was executory only, so that the property in the cotton therein specified remained in Lobdell after said contract.

That the parties to and those interested in said contract made Mar. 15, 1862, between said Lobdell and C. V. Woodruff & Co., are en

ascertainment of the yhole price by weighing, nor complete preparation for delivery, nor any delivery, nor payment.

3. A provision in the contract, that the cotton should be at the risk of the purchaser, from the date thereof, does not of itself show an intention of the parties that the property should pass. 4. The receipt of a small sum in order to confirm the contract, has no bearing upon the question whether the property passed.

5. Where the agreement to sell passes no title, the vendee cannot, but the vendor and his representatives can, sue in the Court of Claims for the proceeds of the property under the Captured and Abandoned Property Act.

[Nos. 142, 143, 166, 223.]

That the claimant, Bessie Elgee Gaussen, executrix of J. K. Elgee, recover of the fund of $366,170.83, now in the Treasury of the United States, being the net proceeds of 572 bales of cotton captured as aforesaid, the proportionate sum of $103,581.80, together with the interest thereon accrued as aforesaid and in the Treasury, amounting to $34,300.82 and making in the aggregate the sum of $137,882.62.

And that the said claimants, Woodruff and Bouchard, recover of said fund, to the use and benefit of the said Lobdell, the sum of $54,352.60 as his proportionate part of said pro

Argued Apr. 9, 12, 13, 14, 1875. Decided May ceeds of said cotton, with the interest thereon

3, 1875.

APPEALS from the Court of Claims.

These cases involved the right to the proceeds of 572 bales of cotton, seized by one Camp as an agent of the Treasury Department, Apr. 2, 1864, in Mississippi. This cotton was part of 2,100 bales originally owned by John J. Elgee and Josiah Chambers. Previous to the seizure, the interest of Chambers had accrued to Elgee.

Five several claims for the proceeds of this cotton were filed in the Court of Claims.

1. That of the heirs and executrix of Elgee. Elgee had died, and Bessie Elgee Gaussen was his executrix.

2. That of C. S. Lobdell, claiming to have been the owner of the cotton by purchase from Elgee and Chambers.

pro

as aforesaid, being $18,002.35, making in the aggregate $72,365.95.

And that the said Woodruff and Bouchard recover to their own use of the said fund, as their proportion of the proceeds of said cot ton, $117,183.75, together with the interest thereon accrued as aforesaid, amounting to $38,738.51, amounting in the aggregate to $155,922.26.

And it is further adjudged and decreed as to claimant, Julia A. Nutt, executrix of Haller Nutt, that her petition be dismissed.

And as to the claimants, Mary Ann Wells and others, children and representatives of said J. K. Elgee, that their joint petitions be dismissed, except so far as the same is the petition of Bessie Elgee Gaussen, executrix of said J. K. Elgee.

From this decree the four appeals above named were taken.

The material facts in the case are as follows:

Lobdell:

July 31, 1863, Gordon, as agent of Elgee an! Chambers, made the following contract "Mississippi, Wilkinson County: We have this 31st of July, 1 Mr. C. S. Lobdell our crops lying in the county aforesaid 2,100 bales, at the pri pound currency. The livered at the land!

What became of Lobdell's petition does not clearly appear. A brief by him states that having sold the bill of sale of Elgee and Chambers of the coiton in question to Woodruff & Co., Mar. 15, 1864, and May, 3 of the same year, having authorized the said firm to prosecute a suit for the recovery of the said ceeds for his benefit, and they agreeing to carry out the terms of the bill of sale made by Elgee and Chambers with him, and to divide the balance of the proceeds after the deduction of the purchase money to be paid in accordance with the terms thereof, he consented to the withdrawal of his pretensions as set forth in his own suit, and allowed it to be consolidated be paid for when with and absorbed in the suit instituted bying to furnish Woodruff & Co. Woodruff & Co., by counsel, agreed in open court that the court should apportion the funds in suit among the parties found to be equitably interested therein. 3. That of Woodruff & Bouchard (Woodruff & Co.), claiming to have been the owners of the cotton by purchase from Lobdell.

4. That of Archibald Montgomery, claimi to have been the owner of the cotton by chase from Elgee.

Montgomery's petition was dismissed a..

appeal taken.

and twine
ginned; a
ceived, in
of thirty
and shi

5. That of the executrix of Haller Nutt. claiming that he was the owner of the cotton W by purchase from Elgee.

following decree:

M

May 8, 1872, the Court of Claims ent

the

The

These causes coming on to be hear original petitions and pleas betw spective parties, claimants and the and also upon the intervening p pleadings between the respective cerning their adverse interests which caused the litigation. is adjudged and decreed in these

nd Fed. on- know

ind Gord

it gee rst. the

sale, Lobdell employed one Morris to watch | & Chambers, and ale to and take care of the cotton.

In October, 1863, Haller Nutt employed one Holmes to go from Natchez, then in possession of the Union forces, into the territory of the Confederacy, to purchase cotton. Nutt procured, from the military authorities at Natchez, permits for Holmes to go on this agency. In the same month Holmes, as agent of Nutt, contracted with Elgee for the sale of so much of the cotton as he should get out in safety to a market, for the price of £15 per bale, to be paid at Liverpool. The risk of the cotton, until got out, to be on Elgee.

Oct. 8, 1863, Elgee delivered to Holmes the following writing:

"ALEXANDRIA, October 8th, 1863. DEAR SIR: It having been agreed on between you and myself that I sell to you all the cotton of Elgee and Chambers now baled and under shed, for the price of 15 pounds sterling per bale payable in Liverpool, you will cause the same to be placed at my credit with James Jackson & Co., at Liverpool. Yours, J. K. ELGEE.

CAPT. TRUMAN HOLMES,

Present."

L

Hebert the further sum G
sum of twenty cents per
account of C. S. Lobde
tity of cotton shonic La
shall be paid ten eers w
of said Êlgee & Chan~
per pound for sexaunt
such amount or quer &
received from s
it is understood a
parties that s
dell until the nasa
pound upon the
cents per pornc

Chambers £32 78-3
of said LoGHI 2
This ea
the one i
making the
Bouchard wer
Orleans the
was a them
and Mam do
informes c
& Can
as be

After the making of the contract between 10Elgee and Holmes for sale of the cotton, El wrote to Gordon, and after stating th Holmes had been at Alexandria and negotia for the cotton, provided he complied with agreement between them, and that two r had elapsed and he had not heard Holmes, he (Elgee) desired Gordon Holmes that the agreement between Holmes was at an end. In the Holmes exhibited to Gordon th and Gordon then communic

I

1863, sold unto of cotton, now numbering about en cents per pound, to be delivered at 1s, and to be paid for dell agreeing to furgging, rope and [*182 on unginned; and we do received, in order to cone sum of $30. This cotton 1 shipped by the house of New Orleans, and from this k of Mr. Lobdell. This cothave weighed an average of unds when baled.

W. C. GORDON,

r Messrs. Elgee and Chambers. C. S. LOBDELL. time when the contract was [*187 baled cotton was stored under a of boards at some place not certainly ed. A portion, equal to about twenty inbaled, was in a gin-house on Buffalo 1, at a place known as "The Rocks," or er's Plantation," about ten miles from Mississippi River. At this latter place bdell and the agent of Elgee met. Whether was the same place where the bulk of the otton was lying does not distinctly appear. Immediately after the contract Lobdell employed J. M. Morris, living near where the cotton was stored, "to watch and take care" m- of it, and paid him therefor, and Morris conIue, tinued his care until the cotton was seized nger by the agent of the United States. But it tions, does not appear that the possession was sure time rendered to Morris, or that there was any proceeds change of possession. At this time, the region standing where the parties were was greatly disturbed Toceeds of by the war, and the cotton was in danger of paid into being burnt by the Confederate forces, and of being captured by the United States. Under these circumstances, what ought it to be conoluded was intended by the contract between Gordon and Lobdell? Was it intended to pass the property in the cotton to the purchaser, or was it in l effect only an agreement to sell? It m admitted there is often great rmining whether a contract is perty so as to pass 1ee, or whether it

ether either ler Nutt had rior to Wates,

these died to

e,

that diffic

the sum it

the deductute. If, on parties ha title; if +

e effect or be concondition shall be a mere agreement