Converse v. Miller

• Decision Date: 01 January 1870
• Citation: 33 Tex. 216
• Parties: JAMES CONVERSE v. M. J. MILLER, ADMINISTRATRIX, ETC
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

33 Tex. 216

JAMES CONVERSE

v.M. J. MILLER, ADMINISTRATRIX, ETC

Supreme Court of Texas.

1870.

1. In 1864, an agent, acting with the advice and assistance of his principal, surrendered to the cotton bureau of the Confederate States, then dominant in Texas, one-half of the principal's cotton, to obtain a permit to export the other half to Mexico and thence to Liverpool. Held, that the transaction was in direct aid of the rebellion, and in violationof the blockade and of the laws of the United States then in force; that the principal and agent were in pari delicto, and neither of them could maintain a suit against the other for proceeds or other liabilities arising out of the transaction.

APPEAL from Harris. Tried below before the Hon. C. B. Sabin.

In April, 1864, Converse, plaintiff below, held a note against one Lewis, which was payable in cotton. Muter Miller, the intestate of the appellee, was then a clerk in the office of W. J. Hutchins, chief of the cotton bureau of the Confederate States. Converse arranged with Miller to collect the cotton from Lewis, and to convert it into money for him, and empowered Miller to “exercise his own judgment about the matter.” Miller collected thirty-five bales of cotton on the note and sold eighteen of them to the cotton bureau, receiving in consideration thereof a permit to export the other seventeen, and also certificates of the cotton bureau for Confederate bonds, to be paid to Converse for the eighteen bales turned over to the bureau. Before this was done, and in contemplation of shipment, Converse wrote to Miller from San Antonio, discussing the expediency of shipping the cotton through that point, and there turning over to the bureau its half of it, and also speaking of the Confederate bonds which were to be received for the cotton to be delivered to the bureau. This letter was dated April 15, 1864, and showed that Converse was entirely familiar with the transactions of the cotton bureau, and knew and consented to the transfer to it of one-half of the cotton.

Converse's seventeen bales were shipped along with some five hundred bales belonging to Hutchins, the chief of the cotton bureau, and in the consignment and returns got confused with Hutchins' cotton. The returns of some 283 bales were made to Hutchins, but he could not tell whether Converse's seventeen bales were part of them or not. Several letters from Miller to Converse appear in the record, fully posting the latter as to the disposition made of the cotton, and the condition of the whole matter so far, apparently, as it was known to Miller himself. Converse admitted in his petition a payment of a draft of his for $363, by Miller, and allowed credit therefor. It is not shown that Miller ever received any proceeds from the cotton, but he represented the money as “perfectly safe.” He died in the spring of 1866, and Converse brought this suit against his widow and administratrix, who is the appellee.

The opinion of the court discloses all other facts of any relevancy to the rulings here...