Josiah Walton, Administrator of Priscilla Cotton, Et Al Complainants and Plaintiffs In Error v. Allen Cotton, Noah Cotton, and William Jones
| Decision Date | 01 December 1856 |
| Citation | 60 U.S. 355,19 How. 355,15 L.Ed. 658 |
| Parties | JOSIAH WALTON, ADMINISTRATOR OF PRISCILLA COTTON, ET AL., COMPLAINANTS AND PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. ALLEN COTTON, NOAH COTTON, AND WILLIAM E. JONES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
THIS case was brought up, from the Supreme Court of Tennessee, by a writ of error issued under the twenty-fifth section of the judiciary act.
The history of the case is given in the opinion of the court.
It was argued by Mr. Baxter for the plaintiffs in error, and by Mr. Lawrence for the defendants.
This case comes before us by a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
It was commenced by filing a bill, in Sumner county, before Chancellor Ridley, in which the complainants state they are the children of Priscilla Cotton and Thomas Cotton, who was a captain in the revolutionary war; that after his death, his widow, Priscilla, filed her declaration for a pension, on account of her husband. Josiah Walton made the application; but she died before the pension was granted. Walton administered on the estate, and he renewed the application, at great trouble and expense. The Pension department allowed about one-half the amount claimed. Out of the money drawn by the administrator, he retained what was agreed for his services and the services of counsel, and paid over the residue, in equal shares, to all the children of Priscilla Cotton, and the representatives of her children who were dead.
The bill further represents that William E. Jones, who acts as an agent for pension claims, and Allen Cotton, with the view of getting the business and money into their hands, applied to the County Court of Davidson county, and suppressed from said court the fact that an administration on said estate had been granted in the county of Sumner, and procured Allen Cotton to be appointed as administrator, which was done with the view of depriving the complainants and others of a legal portion of said pension fund.
The new administrator made application for the extension of the pension, so as to cover the whole time from the allowance of the pension to the death of the pensioner, only one-half of which had been granted. The application was successful; and Jones, under a power of attorney from the administrator, received the sum of $3,500 from the Government, which the defendants retain in their hands, and refuse to pay over; three-fifths of the amount of which the complainants are entitled to, if the children who died before the decease of their mother be not entitled to any share, and three-eighths, should they be entitled.
The answer admits many of the allegations of the bill, but denies that the defendants acted improperly in procuring administration in Davidson county. They admit that they applied for and obtained the above sum, with a full knowledge by the Pension Office of the prior administration. The money was paid to them as the only living children of Priscilla Cotton at the time of her death; and they allege that, this being the construction of the Government, it is conclusive.
The chancellor, on the final hearing, decreed that the representatives of Arthur Cotton, John Cotton, and Polly Foxall, were entitled to three-fifths of said $3,500, and interest, to be paid over to said children; and that said defendants, Noah Cotton, Allen Cotton, and William E. Jones, who have received said fund, are liable to pay over said three-fifths of $3,500, amounting to $2,100, with interest as aforesaid, to be paid over to the children of Polly Foxall, one-third; to the children of Arthur Cotton, one-third; and to the children of John Cotton, one-third, after paying the costs and expenses of their suit, the costs to be paid out of the fund in the hands of the defendants.
From this decree, there was an appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee, which, on a hearing, reversed the decree of the chancellor, holding that the fund should be distributed among the living children at the time of the pensioner's death, and that no part of it should go to the representatives of deceased children.
As the complainants claim a right under an act of Congress, which by the decree of the Supreme Court has been rejected, the case is brought within the twenty-fifth section of the judiciary act, which gives us jurisdiction.
The first section of the act entitled 'An act supplementary to the 'Act for the relief of certain surviving officers of the Revolution," dated June 4th, 1832, gave pensions to surviving officers, non-commissioned officers, musicians, soldiers, and Indian spies, who had served in the Continental line, or State troops, volunteers, or militia, at one or more terms—a period of two years—during the war of the Revolution, &c., and Cotton was entitled to receive his full pay, not exceeding the pay of a captain in the line, from the 4th of March, 1831, during his natural life. The fourth section of the same act provided that the amount of pay which accrued under the act before its date should be paid to the person entitled to the same as soon as may be; and in case of the death of any person embraced by the act, or of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. Clifford, 20737.
...v. Sullivan Drydock & Repair Corp., 328 U.S. 275, 285, 66 S.Ct. 1105, 90 L.Ed. 1230 (1946) (employment tenure); Walton v. Cotton, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 355, 358, 15 L.Ed. 658 (1856) (pension); Philippine Nat'l Bank v. United States, 112 U.S.App.D.C. 126, 128, 300 F.2d 718, 720 (1962) (insurance......
-
Muzquiz v. City of San Antonio, Civ. A. No. SA72CA271.
...Reis is itself antedated by even more venerable cases whose roots go back to the founding of the Republic. See, Walton v. Cotton, 60 U.S. 355, 19 How. 355, 15 L. Ed. 658 (1857) holding that Revolutionary War pensions were in the nature of a "bounty"; see also, United States ex rel. Burnett ......
-
Talbott v. Indep. Sch. Dist. of Des Moines
...time they were rendered gave rise to no legal obligation, the payment of which might be given or withheld at pleasure. Walton v. Cotton, 19 How. 355, 60 U.S. 355, 15 L.Ed. 658;United States v. Teller, 107 U.S. 64, 2 S.Ct. 39, 27 L.Ed. 352;People ex rel. Donovan, v. Retirement Board, etc., 3......
-
Schism v. U.S.
...rights of members of the military for pensions as well as pay appears in Court opinions as early as 1856. In Walton v. Cotton, 60 U.S. 355, 357, 19 How. 355, 15 L.Ed. 658 (1856), the Court explained that to determine who qualifies as beneficiaries of a deceased revolutionary war captain's p......
-
A "narrow Exception" Run Amok: How Courts Have Misconstrued Employee-rights Laws' Exclusion of "policymaking" Appointees, and a Proposed Framework for Getting Back on Track
...v. United States, 260 U.S. 178, 194 (1922) ("It is the duty of this court to give effect to the intent of Congress."); Walton v. Cotton, 60 U.S. 355 172. 3B Singer and Singer, supra note 147, § 76:6 ("Courts and commentators now generally agree . . . that civil rights acts are remedial and ......