
    Smith et al. v. The United States.
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    
      The claimants store cotton on a certain plantation in louieiana. It is captured, in November, 1862, sent to New Orleans, and turned over to the sequestration commission. By order of the commission it is sold and the proceeds are paid over to an officer of the Navy, toko claims that he derived title to it from the parties in lohose possession it was.
    
    I. Wliere the proceeds of captured property were paid hy the sequestration, commission in New Orleans to one claiming to he entitled to them several months before the enactment of the Abandoned or Captured Property Act (12 Stat. L., 820), the court lias no jurisdiction under the statute.
    II. If military or naval officers of the government engaged in the suppression of the rebellion erroneously or tortiously paid away the proceeds of certain captured property on forged transfers or bills of sale, no action lies against the government, and this court is prohibited from exercising jurisdiction by the Act 4ih July, 1864 (Rev. Stat., 5 1061).
    
      
      The Reporters’ statement of tbe case.
    Tbe following are tbe facts as found by tbe court:
    I. On November 6, 1862, George W. Kendall, master of tbe United States gunboat Diana, by order of Lieutenant-Commander T. McK. Bucbanan, bis superior, seized 255 bales of cotton, found on tbe plantation of R. A. and James Todd, on Bayou America, Louisiana, said to belong to tbe claimants, wbo bad stored them there. He took it to Brasbear City, where said Bucbanan, wbo commanded a fleet of naval vessels operating in Louisiana waters, then was.
    II. Tbe following document was produced from tbe records filed in tbe department:
    “Brashaer City, November 7th, 1862.
    “I have this day sold and delivered to Lieut. Commander T. McK. Bucbanan 255 bales of cotton, at 20 cents per pound, payable in currency.
    “I further state that I am, and ever have been, a loyal citizen of tbe United States of America.
    “R. A. TODI).
    “Released and settled. Orders Judge Bell.”
    On or about tbe 14th of November, 1862, tbe said cotton ivas sent to New Orleans by Commander Bucbanan, to Colonel Schaffer, quartermaster, U. S. A., together with tbe following letter:
    “U. S. Gun-boat Calhoun,
    “ Off Brashaer City, November lith, 1862.
    “Col. Schaeeer, TJ. 8. A.:
    
    “ Sir : I send to-day part of a load of cotton brought here from American Bayou a few days ago by tbe U. S. gun-boat Diana. It was seized at tbe request of tbe agent, Mr. Tod, wbo represents himself as a Union man, and that tbe Confederates were going to burn bis cotton;
    “ Captain Kendall will go on with' it, and is aware of all tbe circumstances.
    “Respectfully, &c.,
    “T. MoK. BUCHANAN,
    
      uB’t Commander.”
    
    By Colonel Schaffer tbe matter was referred, and tbe cotton was turned over, to tbe sequestration commission established by Major-General Butler, commanding tbe Department of tbe Gulf.
    
      III. On tlie 6th of December, Commander Buchanan addressed to the members of the sequestration commission the following communication:
    “U. S. Gun-boat Calhoun,
    “ Off Brashaer-, City, December 6,1862.
    “To Lieut. Col. Kinsman & Major J. M. Bell:
    “Gentlemen: On the 6th of November I seized 255 bales of cotton in Bayou America, from the plantation of Mr. Tod, at his own request, he going along with the Diana to show where it was, to prevent it from being burned by the enemy.
    “Mr. Tod came down and offered to sell the cotton, and stated that he was a loyal citizen and wished to take the oath. Not having seen the order of Maj. Gen. Butler, or aware that a commission had been appointed, I purchased it from Mr. Tod, as I thought it wordd be returned to him on his proving himself a lqyal citizen. He has taken the oath of allegiance, and is represented by the planters here as a Union man.
    “If you consider my claim is just, and you can, consistent with your duty, let me have the cotton, I would be obliged to you if you would turn it over to Col. A. J. Butler, whom I have appointed my agent and who has a bill of sale from Mr. Tod to me.
    “I am, respectfully, y’r ob’d’t serv’nt,
    “THO’S McK. BUCHANAN,
    “ Dt Commander.”
    
    The cotton was sold before that date in New Orleans by the sequestration commission, and the net proceeds, amounting to $52,569.55, were paid over to the said commission.
    IY. On the 16th of December,. 1862, A. J. B.utler, as attorney for T. McK. Buchanan, received from the said commission the said proceeds, and gave the following receipt for the same:
    . “ Deceived, New Orleans, Dec. 16th, 1862, of U. S. sequestration commission, fifty-two thousand five hundred and sixty-nine iVg- dollars, for account of Lieut. Buchanan, for two hundred and fifty-five bales cotton sold by them.
    $52,569-^0-.]
    “A. J. BUTLER,
    “ Attorney for T. McKean Buchanan,
    
    
      “Dieta. Crnn'Wg, U. 8. N."
    
    
      V. The authority' under which the said A. J. Butler acted is contained in the following instrument:
    “U. S. Gun-boat Calhoun,
    “ Off Brashaer City, December 6th, 1862.
    “I do hereby appoint Colonel A. J. Butler my agent to receive and receipt for 255 bales of cotton, or for the money therefor, now in the hands of the military commission. Said cotton was seized on the 6th of November, at the request of the owner, Mr. Tod, who is a loyal citizen of the U. S., and sent to N. O. a short time afterwards.
    “THO’S MCE!.' BUCHANAN,
    
      u Lieut. Commander, TT. 8. A.”
    YI. The proceeds of said cotton were not paid into the Treasury of the United States or disbursed and expended in the business and for the use of the government.
    
      Mr. T. W. Bartley for the claimant.
    
      Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Simons for the defendant.
   Hunt, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This suit is brought to recover the proceeds of 255 bales of cotton which the claimants allege belonged to them and had been stored for safe-keeping on the plantation of one James Todd, near Berwick City, in Louisiana, during the years 1861 and 1862.

The facts shown are,"that the cotton thus claimed had been stored on the plantation of Robert A. and James Todd by the claimants, and that on'the 6th of November, 1862, it was captured and carried away by order of Lieutenant-Commander Buchanan, United'States Navy. It was conveyed to Brashear City and was sent thence to New Orleans, where it was turned over to the sequestration commission, a military tribunal established by the commander of the Department of the Gulf. By order of that tribunal it was sold; and its proceeds, after paying the expenses of transportation and sale, amounted to the sum of $52,569.55. This sum was received by the commission; and on the 16th December, 1862, it was in turn qmd over by them to A. J. Butler, as the attorney in fact of Lieutenant-Commander Buchanan.

The claimants’ petition alleges that these proceeds, there is good reason to believe, have been accounted for to the Treasury of .the United States.” It contains no reference to the acts of Congress relative to captured and abandoned property, and states no case under those acts.

The jurisdiction of this court on this subject is limited to claims for the proceeds of such property paid into the Treasury of tlie United States. It is shown by the findings of the court that the proceeds of this cotton have never reached the Treasury, either actually or constructively. They were paid out by the sequestration commission months before the passage of the first act conferring jurisdiction upon this court in cases of captured and abandoned property. The court has no jurisdiction in the case. (Spencer v. United States, 8 C. Cls. R., 294.)

It is urged that the several written instruments in evidence before us are not proven, but are fictitious and fraudulent on their face: and that the paper purporting to be a sale of 255 bales of cotton from R. A. Todd to Buchanan is a forgery. These instruments form part of the records and archives of the sequestration commission. The court finds them genuine and not fictitious or forged.

As to the effect of these documents upon the rights of the claimants or upon the divestiture of their alleged title to the cotton claimed, we are not called upon to express an opinion. If the military and naval officers of the government have erroneously or tortiously appropriated or disposed of the property of the claimants, this court, is expressly prohibited from exercising jurisdiction over their claim for the redress of such injury by the provisions' of the Act July 4, 1864 (Rev. Stat., tit. XIII, sec. 1061).

It is therefore ordered that the claimants’ petition be dismissed.  