
    ROSS’ CASE.
    George W. Ross v. The United States.
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    
      The claimant proves the capture of Ms cotton at Rome, a shipment of all cotton captured at the same time and place upon a railway in the possession of and operated hy the military authorities, the arrival of cotton from that vicinity in Nashville, and its transfer from the Quartermaster Department to the Treasury agent, and finally a sale of the cotton thus transferred and an unclaimed fund in the Treasury.
    
    I. Whore a claimant prroves tho capture of his cottou at a certain place, a shipment of all cotton captured at the same time and place upon a railway in the possession of and operated by the military authorities, the arrival of cotton from that vicinity in Nashville, and its transfer from the Quartermaster Department to a Treasury agent, and finally a sale of the cotton thus transferred and an. unclaimedfund arising therefrom in the Treasury, he is entitled to the legal presumption established by the Supreme Court in Orussell’s Case, (7 C. Cls. E., 276,) that the proceeds of his cotton are in the Treasury within the meaning of the Abandoned or captured property Act, (12 Stat. L., 820.)
    II. The condition of the funds in Price’s Case stated.
    
      
      The Reporters’ statement of the case:
    In. May, 1864, the claimant resided in Athens, Tenn., where he continued to reside till October of that year, when he enlisted in the Army of the-United States and continued in its service until the end of the rebellion. At the same time, in May, 1864, he owned 31 bales of cotton, which were then in a warehouse in Eome, Ga.
    On the ,18th of May, 1864, Eome was captured by the United States forces, and continued to be held by them till November of the same year. Shortly after the capture of the town the cotton ivas removed on Government wagons to a warehouse immediately adjoining and upon the railroad leading to Kingston and Chattanooga. Subsequently all of the cotton in this last-mentioned warehouse was shipped on the railroad to Kingston. The railroad was iu the possession of the military authorities. The time of the shipment from Eome was not shown. But it was shown and found by the court that cotton arrived in Kingston from Eome and was forwarded to Chattanooga, and that on the 19th of August, 1864, the quartermaster at Chattanooga received from the quartermaster at Kingston 42 bales of cotton, which were shipped by him to the quartermaster at Nashville on the 21st August, and that on the 24th August 42 bales were received by the quartermaster at Nashville as coming from Kingston; and that these 42 bales were turned over to the Treasury agent and sold, the proceeds thereof being in the Treasury and amounting to $20,806.09, and that no title has been asserted against these 42 bales by third parties.
    
      Mr. George Taylor for the claimant.
    
      Mr. Alexander Johnston (with whom was the Assistant Attorney-General) for the defendants.
   Nott, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The facts in this case are: First, the capture of the claimants’ cotton at Eome; second, a shipment of all cotton captured at the time and place upon a railway in the possession of and operated by the military authorities; third, the arrival of cotton from that vicinity in Nashville, and its transfer from the Quartermaster Department to the agents of the Treasury; fourth, a sale of cotton thus transferred and an unclaimed fund in the Treasury. We think these facts entitle the claimant to the benefit of the legal presumption established by the Supreme Court in Grussell’s Case, (7 0. Cls. R., 276.)

The cotton thus shipped to Nashville might have gone into any of three of the funds designated in Price’s Case, (7 0. Cls. R., 567,) viz, into the second, the third,' or the sixth. But against the second and sixth, judgments have already been recovered, (Hunt’s Case, 4 C. Cls. R., 438; Henry’s Case, 6 0. Cls. R., 389,) and against the third there is no claim known to the court. The precise amount of this fund has been differently stated by the Treasury at $20,806.09 and at $29,806.09, as shown in Price’s Case. We are inclined to think the latter a clerical error, from the excessive amount per bale which it would give to the 42 bales which it represents, and in the absence of explanation must restrict the recovery to the lesser amount.

The judgment of the court is that the claimant recover the proceeds in the Treasury of 31 bales of cotton, being $495.38 per bale, amounting in the aggregate to $15,356.78.

The Chief-Justice did not sit in this case, and took no part in the decision.  