
    DEESON’S CASE. Hattie L. Deeson, administratrix of William M. Deeson, v. The United States.
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    
      The claimant as administratrix seeks to recover the net proceeds of cotton belonging to her decedent, and paid into the Treasury. She fails to prove the loyalty of her decedent.
    
    Tlie Court of Claims lias not jurisdiction of a suit under the Abandoned and captured propeiiy act, (12 Stat. L., p. 820,) brought by an administrator, where the loyalty of the intestate is not proven.
    
      Mr. B. M. Convine, for the claimant.
    
      Mr. B. 8. Hale, special counsel of the Treasury, for the defendants.
   Milligan, J.,

delivered the judgment of the court:

The claimant, W. M. Deeson, died pending this suit, and it has been revived in the name of his personal representative. The claim is prosecuted for the iiroceeds of six bales of cotton, alleged to have been captured in the parish of Carroll, in the State of Louisiana.

There is a fatal objection, which stands at the threshold of this case. It is jurisdictional, and without its removal we need not proceed to the consideration of any other question.

The loyalty of the claimant’s intestate is not proved, as required by the statute and the rulings of this court under it. There is no proof whatever even tending to show the loyalty of the intestate for a portion of the period of the'.war. The rule is, as laid down in the Margaret Bond Case, and constantly adhered to by this court, that the claimant must show he did not give aid or encouragement to the rebellion throughout the entire period of the war. In this case, there is no proof of loyalty of- William M. Deeson, for the benefit of whose estate this suit is prosecuted, after June, 1863; which positively precludes the claimant from prosecuting her suit in this court.

The petition is dismissed.  