Mail Company v. Flanders
| Decision Date | 01 December 1870 |
| Citation | 12 Wall. 130,79 U.S. 130,20 L.Ed. 249 |
| Parties | MAIL COMPANY v. FLANDERS |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana; the case being this:
The act of March 12th, 1863,1 known as the Abandoned or Captured Property Act, directed that property abandoned or captured within the region lately in insurrection, should be turned over to agents of the Federal treasury, and by them sold at auction, and the proceeds paid into the treasury of the United States, &c. The act goes on to say:
'Any person claiming to have been the owner of any such abandoned or captured property may 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.'
No special jurisdiction in the matter was given by this statute to the Circuit Courts, which if they had jurisdiction at all after the above-quoted provision from the statute, had it only under the Judiciary Act of 1789, which gives them (§ 11) jurisdiction where 'the suit is between a citizen of the State where the suit is brought and a citizen of another State.'
With these statutes in force, the New Orleans Mail Company, a corporation of Louisiana, filed a bill in the nature of a bill in equity, in the court below, against B. F. Flanders, a treasury agent, and one Fernandez, an auctioneer, both defendants, as appeared on the face of the pleadings, being citizens of Louisiana, setting forth that Flanders, pretending to proceed under the said Captured and Abandoned Property Act, had seized two steamboats, the one named Laurel Hill, the other Iberville, and that Fernandez, as auctioneer, was now about to sell them; and praying an injunction against the sale; praying also a writ of sequestration to the marshal, commanding him to keep the boats until the further order of the court. A preliminary injunction and a writ of sequestration were granted accordingly.
The defendant, Flanders, filed an 'answer and plea to the jurisdiction,' setting up that the steamers were captured property; that as such they had been delivered by the military authorities to him, as special agent of the treasury, under the act of Congress; and that he held the boats, and had advertised their sale, in his official capacity. He denied that the Circuit Court had any jurisdiction of the case made in the petition, on the ground that, by the act of March 12th, 1863, the Captured and Abandoned Property Act, the entire jurisdiction of that case was vested in the Court of Claims. He therefore prayed that the petition be dismissed.
The court entered a judgment thus:
'For reasons orally assigned, it is ordered that the injunction herein sued out be made perpetual so far as the steamer Iberville is concerned, and that said steamer be restored to the plaintiffs.
'But as regards the steamer Laurel Hill, considering that the court is without jurisdiction, it is further ordered that the injunction and sequestration be set aside and dismissed with costs, and that said steamer be turned over to B. F. Flanders, agent of the treasury department, as captured property.'
As this judgment was rendered 'for reasons orally assigned,' the grounds of this discrimination between the cases of the two vessels did not appear, nor the ground on which the court supposed it had any jurisdiction whatever of the suit against the Iberville more than against the other.
From the judgment, in respect to the Laurel Hill, the mail company took this appeal. Of course, as the other vessel was restored to them by the judgment of the court, they had no ground of complaint against the decree in respect to her, and the other side not appealing, there could be no question as to the judgment given in respect to that vessel.
The case was submitted; Mr. Evarts declining to press the case for the appellant, as being a plain one against him.
Mr. Hoar, for the United States, represented here by the appellees.
Authority was conferred upon the Secretary of the Treasury, by the act of the twelfth of March, 1863, to appoint special agents to receive and collect abandoned or captured property in any State or Territory designated as in insurrection, by the proclamation of the President issued on the first day of July in the preceding year. Such property, so received or collected, may be appropriated to public use on due appraisement and certificate thereof, or may be forwarded for sale within the loyal States as the public interest may require; and the further provision is that all sales of the property shall be at auction to the highest bidder, and that the proceeds thereof shall be paid into the treasury.2
Officers or privates in the army, and officers, sailors, or marines in the navy, are required by the sixth section of the act to turn over to an agent appointed under that act, all property taken or received from persons in such insurrectionary districts, or which they have under their control; and the same section also provides that the agent receiving such property shall give a receipt for the same to the person from whom it was received.3
Two steamboats, to wit, the Laurel Hill and the Iberville, were captured by our military and naval forces at New Orleans in the month of May, 1862, shortly after our military occupation of the city became complete. Carefully examined the proofs show that the Laurel Hill was captured on the eighth of May of that year, in Bayou Jacquot, a small bayou connected with Bayou Plaquemines, situated in the parish of Iberville, on the right bank of the river Mississippi, one hundred miles above the city of New Orleans, and at that time within the military lines of the Confederate army. Our military occupation of the city became complete on the sixth of May of that year, and the proofs show the Iberville was captured on the twenty-second of the same month while lying at Greenville, which is situated on the left bank of the river, four and a half miles...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain R.
...depends on the facts when the complaint is filed, not on later facts. See, e.g., New Orleans & Bayou Sara Mail Co. v. Fernandez, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 130, 134, 20 L.Ed. 249 (1870); St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289-90, 58 S.Ct. 586, 590-91, 82 L.Ed. 845 (1938); ......
-
Lang v. Windsor Mount Joy Mut. Ins. Co., Civ. A. No. 80-0983.
...of the action, it cannot be created by a subsequent change of domicile by one of the parties"). 25 New Orleans Mail Co. v. Flanders, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 130, 20 L.Ed. 249 (1870). 26 See Seaboard Finance Co. v. Davis, supra. 27 Schuckman v. Rubenstein, 164 F.2d 952 (6th Cir. 1947), Gallo v. Y......
-
COMMERCIAL NAT. BANK IN SHREVEPORT v. Parsons
...Black Feather, 155 U. S. 180, 15 S.Ct. 64, 39 L.Ed. 114; The Stephen Morgan, 94 U.S. 599, 24 L.Ed. 266; New Orleans Mail Company v. Flanders, 12 Wall. 130, 79 U.S. 130, 20 L.Ed. 249; Alexander, Collector of Internal Revenue v. Cosden Pipe Line Company, 290 U.S. 484, 54 S.Ct. 292, 78 L. Ed. ......
-
Alexander v. Cosden Pipe Line Co v. 10 8212 13, 1933
...583; Canal Co. v. Gordon, 6 Wall. 561, 568, 18 L.Ed. 894; The Maria Martin, 12 Wall. 31, 40—41, 20 L.Ed. 251; New Orleans Mail Co. v. Flanders, 12 Wall. 130, 134—135, 20 L.Ed. 249; Mount Pleasant v. Beckwith, 100 U.S. 514, 527, 25 L.Ed. 699; Clark v. Killian, 103 U.S. 766, 769, 26 L.Ed. 607......