Black v. Jones

• Decision Date: 31 January 1870
• Citation: 64 N.C. 318
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: GEORGE BLACK v. REUBEN JONES.

64 N.C. 318

GEORGE BLACK

v.REUBEN JONES.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January Term, 1870.

*1 Where a horse was taken from a private citizen of Randolph County, about the 2nd of May 1865, (it did not appear by whom,) and afterwards (July 26th 1865,) was sold at a public government sale held in Raleigh, by an A. Q. M. of the U. S. Army, being then branded as United States property: Held, that the title of the original owner was not thereby extinguished.

( Wilson v. Franklin, 63 N. C. 259, cited and approved)

TROVER, for a horse, tried before Tourgee, J., at Fall Term 1869, of RANDOLPH Court.

The horse had been taken from the owner, a private citizen of Randolph county, about the 2nd of May 1865; and, upon the 26th of July thereafter was purchased, at a public Government sale of horses in Raleigh by one A. W. Garoutte, A. Q. M. in the U. S. Army. It was at that time branded, as the property of the United States, and a bill of sale was given by Garoutte. The defendant claimed under the purchaser at this sale.

The defendant asked the Court to instruct the jury, that the property in the animal was changed by the formal sale, under the authority of the United States.

His

Honor declined to do so.

Under the instructions of the Court, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, &c., and the defendant appealed.

No counsel, for the appellant .

Scott and Mendenhall, contra .

SETTLE, J.

The defendant has no just ground of exception to the charge of his Honor. Conceding, for the sake of the argument, that the government of the United States had the right to take horses without compensation, during the existence of hostilities, from any citizen, loyal or disloyal, of the rebellious states, there can be no pretence of right to do so after the cessation of hostilities. Of course we are not considering the right or power of the government to confiscate property for the crime of rebellion. It is true, the government had, and exercised the right of taking any property, wherever found, which belonged to the Confederate authorities; for upon their surrender, it became the property of the government.

The armistice between Generals Sherman and Johnston was proclaimed on the 17th day of April 1865. This was followed by the surrender of Johnston to Sherman on the 25th day of the same month. So, hostilities ceased, and the war virtually ended, on the day of proclaiming the armistice.

In the case before us, the horse in question had never belonged to the Confederate authorities, but was taken, about the 2nd day of May 1865, from the possession and ownership of the plaintiff, a private citizen, without his consent. It does not appear who took the horse from the possession of the plaintiff. All that we...