Thompson v. United States

• Decision Date: 15 April 1918
• Docket Number: No. 184,184
• Citation: Thompson v. United States, 246 U.S. 547, 38 S.Ct. 349, 62 L.Ed. 876 (1918)
• Parties: THOMPSON v. UNITED STATES
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

246 U.S. 547

38 S.Ct. 349

62 L.Ed. 876

THOMPSON

v UNITED STATES.

No. 184.

Argued March 12, 1918.

Decided April 15, 1918.

Messrs. William B. King, George A. King, and William E. Harvey, all of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Mr. Assistant Attorney General Thompson, for the United States.

Mr. Justice CLARKEdelivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an appeal from a decision by the Court of Claims sustaining a demurrer and dismissing appellant's petition.

The appellant alleges that his decedent on April 28, 1863, 'executed a bill of sale to the Confederate States of America' for seventy-two bales of cotton and received therefor 'bonds of the Confederate States government to the nominal value of $5,500.'This bill of sale reads as follows:

'72 Bales;Aggregate Weight 37309at 15 $5,596.35/100

'State of Mississippi, County of Copiah:

'Pine Ridge, April 28/63.

'The undersigned having sold to the Confederate States of America, and received the value of same in bonds, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, bales of cotton, marked, numbered and classed as in the margin, which are now deposited at his gin house & shed hereby agrees to take due care of said cotton whilst on his plantation, and to deliver the same at his own expense, at Brookhaven, in the state of Miss. to the order of the Secretary of the Treasury, or his agents, or their assigns.

'J. H. Thompson.'

It is further alleged that the appellant has no knowledge as to the disposition made of the bonds received by his decedent and that they became valueless on surrender of the military forces of the Confederate States; that the cotton remained in the possession of his decedent until subsequent to June 30, 1865, when forty-three of the seventy-two bales were taken from him by United States Treasury agents under warrant of the Act of Congress, approved March 3, 1863, entitled 'An act to provide for the collection of abandoned property' and for other purposes; that the cotton was sold and the pro- ceeds deposited in the Treasury of the United States, and that 'the claimant(appellant) and said decedent have at all times borne true allegiance to the government of the United States and have not in any way voluntarily aided, abetted or given encouragement to rebellion against the said government, that is to say, if any such acts were committed during the late Civil War between the years 1861 and 1865, a full pardon has been granted therefor by the President of the United States.'

Upon the facts thus stated the appellant asserts a right to recover the net proceeds of the cotton seized and sold, based upon the terms of section 162 of the Act of March 3, 1911(the Judicial Code) which reads as follows:

'Sec. 162.The Court of Claims shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine the claims of those whose property was taken subsequent to June the first, 1865, under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March twelfth [third], 1863, entitled 'An act to provide for the collection of abandoned property and for the prevention of frauds in insurrectionary districts within the United States,' and acts amendatory thereof where the property so taken was sold and the net proceeds thereof were placed in the Treasury of the United States; and the Secretary of the Treasury shall return said net proceeds to the owners thereof, on the judgment of said court, and full jurisdiction is given to said court to adjudge said claims, any statutes of limitations to the contrary notwithstanding.'

Assuming that the pardon pleaded in the petition and the decisions of this court relieve the appellant of any disability on account of the claimed disloyalty of his decedent (Carlisle v. United States, 16 Wall. 147, 21 L. Ed. 426), it is clear that he can prevail only if his decedent was the owner of t e cotton when...