Illinois Co v. Bosworth
Decision Date | 20 January 1890 |
Citation | 33 L.Ed. 550,10 S.Ct. 231,133 U.S. 92 |
Parties | ILLINOIS C. R. CO. et al. v. BOSWORTH et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This was an action brought by Millard Bosworth and Charles H. Bosworth, only surviving children of A. W. Bosworth, deceased, to recover possession of one undivided sixth part of a certain tract of land in New Orleans, which formerly belonged to their said father. The petition states that the latter having taken part in the war of the Rebellion, and done acts which made him liable to the penalties of the confiscation act of July 17, 1862, the said one-sixth part of said land was seized, condemned, and sold under said act, and purchased by one Burbank in May, 1865; that the said A. W. Bosworth died on the 11th day of October, 1885; and that the plaintiffs, upon his death, became the owners in fee-simple of the said one-sixth part of said property, of which the defendant the Illinois Central Railroad Company was in possession. The company filed an answer, setting up various defenses; among other things tracing title to themselves from the said A. W. Bosworth, by virtue of an act of sale executed by him and his wife, before a notary public, on the 23d day of September, 1871, disposing of all their interest in the premises, with full covenant of warranty. They further allege that said Bosworth had, before said act of sale, not only been included in the general amnesty proclamation of the president, issued on the 25th of December, 1868, but had received a special pardon on the 2d of October, 1865, and had taken the oath of allegiance, and complied with all the terms and conditions necessary to be restored to, and reinvested with, all the rights, franchises, and privileges of citizenship. The parties, having waived a trial by jury, submitted to the court an agreed statement of facts in the nature of a special verdict, upon which the court gave judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. To that judgment the present writ of error is brought.
Those portions of the statement of facts which are deemed material to the decision of the case are as follows, to-wit: '(14) It is further agreed, as a part of this statement of facts, that the president of the United States, on the 25th day of December, 1868, issued a general amnesty proclamation, and the terms of said proclamation, as found in the Statutes at Large of the United States, are made part of this statement of facts.'
The following is a copy of the special pardon (Document A) referred to in the statement of facts, and of the written acceptance thereof, to-wit:
The proclamation of general amnesty and pardon issued on the 25th day of December, 1868, referred to in the last article of the statement of facts, is found in volume 15, pp. 711, 712, St. at Large. After referring to several previous proclamations, it proceeds as follows, to-wit: 'And whereas, the authority of the federal government having been re-established in all the states and territories within the jurisdiction of the United States, it is believed that such prudential reservations and exceptions as at the dates of said several proclamations were deemed necessary and proper may now be wisely and justly relinquished, and that a universal amnesty and pardon for participation in said Rebellion extended to all who have borne any part therein will tend to secure permanent peace, order, and prosperity throughout the land, and to renew and fully restore confidence and fraternal feeling among the whole people, and their respect for and attachment to the national government, designed by its patriotic founders for the general good: now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson, president of the United States, by...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Young v. Lewis
...to statutory provisions inconsistent with it; * * *.' Wallach v. Van Riswick, 92 U.S. 202, 212, 23 L.Ed. 473. See Illinois Central Railroad v. Bosworth, 133 U.S. 92, 100, 10 S.C. 231, 33 L.Ed. 550. The doctrine of abeyance of the fee is critically analyzed in the following language: '* * * ......
-
Hempel v. Weedin
...L. 558; Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333, 18 L. Ed. 366; Young v. United States, 97 U. S. 39, 24 L. Ed. 992; Ill. Central R. Co. v. Bosworth, 133 U. S. 92, 10 S. Ct. 231, 33 L. Ed. 550; Jones v. Alcorn County, 56 Miss. 766, 31 Am. Rep. 385; Rison v. Farr, 24 Ark. 161, 87 Am. Dec. 52; Hilton v.......
-
Page v. Watson
... ... F. 401, 47 L.R.A., N.S., 206; Pierce v. Carskadon, ... 16 Wall, 234, 83 U.S. 234, 21 L.Ed. 276; Tate v. Baugh, ... D.C., 252 F. 317; Illinois Central R. Co. v ... Bosworth, 133 U.S. 92, 10 S.Ct. 231, 33 L.Ed. 550; ... Boyd v. United States, 142 U.S. 450, 12 S.Ct. 292, ... 35 L.Ed. 1077 ... ...
-
In re From
...States v. Padelford, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 531; Osborn v. United States, 91 U. S. 474; Armstrong's Foundry, 73 U. S. 766; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Bosworth, 133 U. S. 92; 2 Op. Atty.-Gen. 329; 8 Op. Atty.-Gen. 281; 14 Op. Atty.-Gen. 599; 16 Op. Atty.-Gen. 1. In Roberts v. State, Roberts was convic......
-
JUDICIAL AUTONOMY V. EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY: WHICH PREVAILS IN THE CASE OF A POSTCOMMUTATION COLLATERAL ATTACK?
...to allow commutations under the theory that it is a lesser power included in the pardon power. See, e.g., 111. Cent. R.R. v. Bosworth, 133 U.S. 92, 103 (1890); Osborn v. United States, 91 U.S. 474, 478 (1876); David B. Hill, The Pardoning Power, 154 N. AM. REV. 50, 52 (1892) ("[I]t has been......