United States v. Crusell

Decision Date01 December 1871
Citation20 L.Ed. 821,14 Wall. 1,81 U.S. 1
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

APPEAL from the Court of Claims; the case being thus:

The 'Abandoned and Captured Property Act'* authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to appoint special agents to receive and collect all abandoned or captured property in any State or Territory in insurrection against the United States, and authorized also the sending of such property to any place of sale within the loyal States, and the sale of it at auction to the highest bidder. 'And the proceeds thereof,' says the act, 'shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States.' 'The treasurer,' adds the act, 'shall cause a book of accounts to be kept showing from whom such property was received, and the cost of transportation, and proceeds of the sale thereof.'

The fourth section enacts:

'That all property coming into any of the United States not declared in insurrection as aforesaid, from within any of the States declared in insurrection, through or by any other person than an agent duly appointed under the provisions of this act, or under a lawful clearance by the proper officer of the Treasury Department, shall be confiscated to the use of the government of the United States. And any agent or agents, person or persons, by or through whom such property shall come within the lines of the United States unlawfully as aforesaid, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof, shall be fined in any sum not exceeding $1000, or imprisoned for any time not exceeding one year, or both, at the discretion of the court.'

The sixth section is as follows:

'It shall be the duty of every officer or private of the regular or volunteer forces of the United States, or any officer, sailor, or marine in the naval service of the United States upon the inland waters of the United States, who may take or receive any such abandoned property, from persons in such insurrectionary districts, or have it under his control, to turn the same over to an agent appointed as aforesaid, who shall give a receipt therefor; and in case he shall refuse or neglect so to do, he shall be tried by a court-martial, and shall be dismissed from the service, or, if an officer, reduced to the ranks, or suffer such other punishment as said court shall order with the approval of the President of the United States.'

The act also provides that any person asserting himself to have been owner of any such abandoned property 'may prefer his claim to the proceeds thereof in the Court of Claims, and on proof to the satisfaction of said court of his ownership of said property, of his right to the proceeds thereof, and that he has never given any aid or comfort to the present rebellion, shall receive the residue of such proceeds, after the deduction of any purchase-money which may have been paid, together with the expense of transportation and sale of said property, and any other lawful expenses attending the disposition thereof.'

Under this act one Crusell, a loyal citizen of Georgia, presented his petition to the Court of Claims, claiming the proceeds of 73 bales (about 37,500 lbs.) of cotton which he alleged belonged to him, and had been stored at Atlanta, Georgia, where, on the capture of the place by General Sherman, in September, 1864, it had been seized by the United States, turned over to an agent of the Treasury Department, sold by him, and the net proceeds paid into the Treasury. Owing to the fact, as was testified, that the quartermaster in charge of captured and abandoned property had left Atlanta before the claimant's cotton had been delivered at the depot there, the claimant had not procured...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Nixon v. Sirica
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 12 Octubre 1973
    ...109 United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc., 272 U.S. 1, 14-15, 47 S.Ct. 1, 71 L.Ed. 131 (1926); see United States v. Crusell, 81 U.S. (14 Wall.) 1, 4, 20 L.Ed. 821 (1872); cf. NLRB v. Shawnee Industries, Inc., 333 F.2d 221, 225 (10th Cir. 1964); United States v. Washington, 233 F.2d 811......
  • People v. Small
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 9 Febrero 1926
    ...presumption arises and the fact sought to be established by the dependent presumption. Douglass v. Mitchell, 35 Pa. St. 440; United States v. Crusell, 14 Wall. 1 ;United States v. Ross [92 U. S.] 2 Otto, 281, . In the case last cited it is said, in passing upon this question: ‘Such a mode o......
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Montana
    • 6 Abril 1961
    ...presumption that a public officer has performed his legal duty and that his proceedings are regular and legal. United States v. Crusell, 14 Wall. 1, 81 U.S. 1, 20 L.Ed. 821; Collins v. Yosemite Park & Curry Co., 304 U.S. 518, 58 S.Ct. 1009, 82 L.Ed. 1502; Chin Chuck Ming v. Dulles, 9 Cir., ......
  • Baker v. United States, 2215.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • 30 Julio 1928
    ...regularity of such administrative acts. United States v. Chemical Foundation, 272 U. S. 1, 47 S. Ct. 1, 71 L. Ed. 131; United States v. Crusell, 14 Wall. 1, 20 L. Ed. 821; Oliver v. United States (C. C. A.) 267 F. 544; Stockslager v. United States (C. C. A.) 116 F. 590; Snow v. Weeks, 75 Me......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT