
    Robert M. and Stephen A. Douglas v. The United States.
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    
      In 1857, infants of tender years inherit certain slaves. Their guardian enters info a copartnership with one McHatton to grow cotton. One Dodds is the common agent of loth parties, having charge of the plantation. After the breaking out of the war McHatton and Dodd continue to groiv cotton on the plantation in Mississippii, the claimants residing in Illinois. In Dceeniber, 1862, McHatton removes the slaves to Texas, abandons the plantation, and leaves the cotton and other effects as the share of the claimants. This is ac- ■ ceded toby Dodds.' He continues to hold possession exclusively for the claimants till March, 1863, when the cotton is captured. ' McHatton, after the war, renounces all in terestin it, and before the suit is brought dies. Congress refer the claim to this court in 1874.
    I. The wav of the rebellion dissolved a copartnership» existing between infants in Illinois and a person in Mississippi. But the dissolution had no regard to things past. The parties continued partners as to property actually acquired, and remained bound to accou'nt to each other therefor.
    II. Where partners domiciled on loyal and disloyal territory were engaged in growing cotton before the war, it was not contrary to the principle of international lawforbidding commercial intercoru'sebetweenbellig-erents for the resident partner to turn over to a common agent on the spot, appointed prior to hostilities, a mass of cotton on the plantation as the share of the absent partner. And the latter might ratify the transaction after the war and assort a valid title to the cotton. L —
    
      III. A payment in discharge of an actual indebtedness made by one partner to his partners, absent on hostile territory, after the dissolution of the concern by war, whether effected by the delivery of a sum of money or of goods, will be upheld, if made with no purpose to evade the rights of the government, to an agent on the spot, whose agency was created before the.war began.
    IV. If the monoy or goods thus delivered wore inadequate to discharge the just claims of the absent partners, it rests with them alone to complain. If they ratify the transaction, the government is not eon- • cerned in the inadequacy of the consideration.
    V.Though the war worked a dissolution of the partnership, nevertheless after the war the surviving partners might maintain an action in their own names under the Abandoned or Gaptwed Property Aot (12 Stat. L., 820) for the proceeds of captured proiJerty of which the members of the Arm were the owners.
    
      The Reporters statement of tlie case:
    This suit was brought after the expiration of the jurisdictional period for bringing such suits under the Abandoned or Captured Property Act (12 Stat. L,, 820) by authority of the private Act 22 d June, 1874 (18 Stat. L., 606), which provided “That the claim of Bobert M. and Stepheil A. Douglas for payment for their cotton seized in March, 1863, be, and the same hereby is, referred to the Court of Claims for it decision, according to law and the practice of that court in such cases and proceedings.”
    The following are the facts as found by the court:
    Í. The claimants are the sons of the late Stephen A. Douglas, of Illinois. On December 1, 1857, Stephen A. Douglas, in his capacity of their guardian, they being then minors, and as executor of Bobert Martin, their grandfather, of whose estate they were the heirs-at-law, entered into a copartnership with James A. McHatton, of Louisiana. The objects of the partnership were to establish and work a cotton plantation in the county of Washington and' State of Mississippi. • McHatton furnished the land, 2,000 acres; the claimants furnished the slaves, 142 in number, and the mules, cattle, wagons, &c., essential to the production of the crops. The profits of the enterprise were to be divided in the ratio of the amount of capital contributed by each party. This amount was ascertained by appraisers appointed by the parties. The land -was appraised at $80,000; the slaves and property furnished by the claimants were valued at $118,000. Tbe slaves, stock, and property owned by tbe claimants were under tbe entire direction, control, and superintendence of Mc-Hatton.
    II. Tbe slaves, witb tbe stock, &c., belonging to tbe claimants, in tbe years 1860,1861, and 1862, under tbe superintendence of McHatton, produced on tbe plantation a quantity of cotton, of which 400 bales raised in 1860 and other bales raised in 1861 and a small quantity unbaled in 1862 remained on tbe plantation until 1863. During all this period tbe claimants were residents of Illinois, and neither' they nor their guardian took any part in raising tbe cotton. Tbe late Stephen A. Douglas died on June 3,1861. Bobert M. Douglas, one of tbe claimants, became of age on tbe 28th January, 1870; bis brother Stephen, two years afterwards.
    III. In October, 1862, a quantity of cotton in bales was secreted on tbe plantation. It was piled up under a shed or wooden structure, by order of McHatton, to preserve it for tbe claimants. In December of that year McHatton caused tbe Douglas slaves to be removed to Texas, abandoned tbe plantation, and left tbe cotton and other effects remaining upon it as tbe share of tbe claimants. This division or settlement was effected and acceded to by tbe common agent of both parties, intrusted by them witb tbe supervision of tbe plantation, and be continued to bold possession of tbe cotton exclusively for tbe claimants until March, 1863. McHatton never afterwards set up claim to it, but, on tbe contrary, formally renounced all claim in favor of tbe claimants in 1872. McHatton died subsequently in that year, and tbe claimants are bis sole surviving partners.
    IY. On tbe 24th, 25th, and 26th of March, 1863, 326 bales of tbe cotton referred to, belonging to tbe claimants, were seized by tbe forces of tbe United States Army under General Bansom and carried away from the plantation, where they bad been stored, to a landing on tbe Mississippi Eiver near thereto, and from thence were conveyed on tbe transport Empress to Memphis, in tbe State of Tennessee. Tbe said 326 bales were intermingled on tbe Empress witb a mass of other captured cotton, and tbe whole mass, amounting in tbe aggregate (including tbe said 326 bales) to 2,209 bales, was sold, and the proceeds thereof, amounting to 1421,063.39, were paid into tbe Treasury of tbe United States.
    Y. Tbe proceeds of tbe said 326 bales, so belonging to tbe claimants and so sold and paid, into tbe Treasury, were fifty-eight thousand four hundred and twenty-two dollars and forty-six cents.
    The following additional findings were allowed by the court in lieu of certain others requested by the defendants:
    YI. After the war broke out the plantation was directed and controlled by McHatton alone.
    The contract between Stephen A. Douglas and James A. McHatton is shown in a written instrument executed by them on the 31st day of May,. 1859, and which is in the words and figures following:
    “This article of agreement, made and entered into this 31st day of May, A. D. 1859, between Stephen A. Douglas, in his capacity as executor of the estate of Eobert Martin, deceased, and guardian of his two sons (Eobert M. Douglas and Stephen A. Douglas, jr.), who are the heirs-at-law of the said estate, of the city of Chicago and State of Illinois, of the first part, and James A. McHatton, of the city of Baton Eouge and the State of Louisiana, of the second part, witnesseth:
    “That on the first day of December, A. D. 1857, the parties aforesaid entered into an agreement to establish and work a cotton plantation, in the county of Washington and State of Mississippi, on certain lands owned by the said party of the second part, and described and known, according to the public surveys, as section number 1, with the exception of the west half of the northwest quarter, the southeast quarter of section number two, the whole of sections eleven and twelve, and the north half of section fourteen, all in township fifteen north, of range eight west; and also the west hah' of the northwest quarter of section six, in township number fifteen north, of range seven west, and adjoining the aforesaid section one on the east side, which said land, in the aggregate, when the boundaries shall be properly adjusted, are supposed to amount to at least two thousand acres; it being understood between the parties aforesaid that they will, at their earliest convenience, and by mutual agreement, make such modifications of the boundaries of said tracts of land, with reference to bayous and other natural causes, as may be deemed for the advantage of the plantation herein proposed to be established, and the adjoining lands, which are or may be owned in whole or in part by the said party of the second part.
    “ The terms and conditions of the said partnership were by said agreement and are hereby declared to be as follows:
    “ 1st. That the said lands should be valued by Samuel Worth-ington and Edward P. Johnson, who were selected by mutual consent on account of our implicit confidence in tbeir intelligence, impartiality, and integrity as citizens and planters in the vicinity of said plantation, which, said valuation has accordingly been made by them to our mutual satisfaction, by fixing the cash value of the land on the first day of December, 1857, at forty dollars per acre, making eighty thousand dollars for the two thousands acres.
    “2d. That all the negro slaves belonging to the estate of Robert Martin, deceased, and held by the said party of the first part in his capacity of executor and guardian as aforesaid, and which, at the time of the death of the said Robert Martin, and until the period of entering into the aforesaid agreement on the first day of December, 1857, were employed in Lawrence County, Miss., under the charge of James Strickland, and were one hundred and forty-two in number, as appears from the list filed by the said Strickland in the court of probate of the said county of Lawrence, were to be removed, and accordingly were removed, to the plantation, herein provided for at the date of said agreement, together with the stock and such other articles of property as were deemed suitable for the new plantation.
    “3d. That the said slaves were to be, and it is hereby stipulated that they shall be, well fed, well clothed, humanely treated, and kindly and properly cared for according to the laws of the State and the customs and usages of the best regulated plantations, under the most kind and humane masters, during the entire period of said partnership; and to this end the following stipulation shall be inserted in the contract with every overseer and person having charge or control of said plantation, to witu
    
      “ That he will supply himself with at least two copies of Thomas Appleby’s Record and Account Book No. 3 for Cotton Plantations, and that he will keep his daily record of events for each day faithfully and truly, according to the forms and requirements of said book, noting the births and death of each slave, with their names; the number sick, with their names'; the number absent, with their names and the causes of their absence; that he will keep a quarterly inventory of the stock and implements; a daily record of the cotton packing; a record of clothing, tools, &c.; a detailed account and receipts for supplies, showing the dates, amounts, descriptions, and quantities of each kind, &c.; a record of the physician’s visits to the sick, &c.; record of the weight of each bale of cotton and the number of bales; record of sales and shipments of .cotton and all other property leaving the plantation; annual list of the negroes; the general results of the season; and, in short, that he will keep a full and complete account in all respects according to said book, and will, at the end of each week, send by mail to the said Stephen A. Douglas an exact copy of said daily record, and at the end of each quarter a like copy of his quarterly record, or account, and at the end of each year a like copy of the general results of the plantation, and that he will furnish the same reports in like manner to the party of the second part whenever directed to do so; and also that he will not permit the said slaves to work or be employed elsewhere than on said plantation, except in case of urgent necessity, and in such cases he will enter the fact in his record of daily events, with the names of the slaves and the nature of the necessity.’
    “4th. That for the purpose of forcing the ratio of profits and loss between the said parties, arising out' of said partnership, it was agreed that said slaves and other property furnished by the party of the first part should, in like manner as the land, be valued at their cash value on the first day of December, 1857, by the said Samuel Worthington and Edward P. Johnson, which has been done accordingly to our mutual satisfaction,, as follows:
    “The one hundred and forty-two negroes are valued atone hundred and thirteen thousand and three hundred dollars ($113,300), and thirty-two (32) mules are valued at four thousand dollars ($4,000); and twenty (20) head of cattle are valued at five hundred dollars ($500); and four wagons are valued at two hundred ($200) dollars, making in the aggregate the sum of one hundred and eighteen thousand dollars ($118,000) as the amount of capital put into the said partnership by the said party of the first part against the sum of eighty thousand dollars ($80,000), being the valuation of the lands put in by the said party of the second part.
    “5th. That the said partnership shall continue until Bobert M. Douglas (the oldest of the two boys) shall become twenty-one years of age, which will be on the 28th day of January, 1870, and with his assent shall continue two years thereafter, when his brother Stephen will become of age.
    “ 6th. That after first deducting and paying the expenses in improving, keeping up, and managing said plantation, including all taxes and assessments of all kinds on both real and personal property, the proceeds and profits arising therefrom shall be divided between the parties aforesaid in the ratio of the amount of capital put in by each, to wit, in the ratio of one hundred and eighteen to eighty (118 to ’80).
    “ 7th. That at the expiration of the said partnership the said parties of the first part shall be at liberty, if they or either of them choose, to become the purchasers and exclusive owners of said plantation, on the following terms, to wit, at forty dollars per acre, in accordance with the valuation already made on amount of said land, which bears the same proportion to the whole as the one hundred and eighteen thousand (118,000) capital bears to the eighty thousand (80,000) capital, and the residue of said land, to wit, the number of acres which bears the. same proportion to the whole as eighty (80) bears to one hun-drecl and eighteen (118), shall be valued by impartial and disinterested men, to be mutually selected and agreed upon, who shall determine its value per acre according to its then cash value.
    £‘8th. That in the event the said Robert M. Douglas and Stephen A. Douglas, jr., shall elect to become the purchasers of said lands on the terms and at the prices as aforesaid, they shall within thirty days after the expiration of said partnership, or either of them, in case one should choose to become the purchaser and the other should fail to do so, pay to the said party of the second part one-fourth of the purchase-money, and execute notes with mortgages on the premises for the residue, payable in three equal annual instalments thereafter; and the said party of the second part binds himself, his hems and legal representatives, to execute to the said party of the first part, or either of them, as the case may be, their hems and assigns, a valid and complete title in law and equity to all of said lands, clear of all incumbrances, with warrantees and covenants against all claims and claimants whatsoever, which conveyances of title shall be declared at the same time of the delivery of the notes and mortgages and the making of the said first payment.
    “9th. That the accounts of said plantation shall all be settled and closed at the end of each year, with our commission merchant in New Orleans, and the balance ascertained, and a detailed copy of all the accounts, showing the exact condition of the partnership and the plantation, furnished to each of the parties aforesaid.
    “10th. That at the expiration of the partnership, all farming utensils and stock on the plantation shall be valued in like manner, and in the event the said party of the first part shall become the purchasers of the lands as herein provided, they shall also take the farming utensils and stock at the same valuation, and pay the party of the second part for their portion of them on the same terms as for the land; and, on the other hand, if the said party of the first part declines to purchase the lands, then the party of the second part shall and will take the farming utensils and stock, and pay for the same at said valuation and on the same terms.
    
      “ In witness whereof the said parties aforesaid have hereunto set their hands and seals this day and year above written, in duplicate.
    “ STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS, [seal.]
    “ Executor and Guardian, &c.
    
    “ J. A. McHATTON. [SEAL.]
    “ In presence of—
    “A. Lashley.
    “ Bob Lashley.”
    
      YII. Tbe division or settlement mentioned in tbe findings of tbe court was effected by James Dodds. He was manager of an adjoining plantation belonging to O. G-. McHatton, tbe brother of James A. McHatton; and, by tbe authority of both J. A. Mc-Hatton and S. A. Douglas, became intrusted with tbe supervision of them plantation in May, 1860. Seventy of the slaves, tbe best of tbe force, were taken to Texas, and there delivered to McHatton in December, 1862; tbe rest in May, 1863. They were there worked by him in 1863 and 1864, making two crops of cotton for him exclusively. Tbe division or settlement was ratified by him, and be renounced and disavowed all interest in tbe cotton, both during and since tbe Avar.
    YIII. Tbe claimants bad no knowledge of any of tbe matters set forth in tbe third finding until tbe year 1870.
    Tbe number of bales of cotton secreted on tbe plantation in tbe manner already stated was. 335 and upAvards.'
    IX. Tbe claimants’ cotton was intermingled Avitli other cotton at the place of capture and its identity lost. Tbe mass of intermingled cotton, amounting to 2,209 bales, Avas brought out on tbe steamer Empress and turned OArnr to Oapt. G. L. Fort, assistant quartermaster at Memphis, about tbe 1st of April, 1863. By losses arising from tbe damaged condition of tbe cotton and tbe rebaling of a portion of it the mass Avas reduced to 2,111 bales, and was sold by Captain Fort, in April, 1863, for $429,663.39. This money was expended by Captain Fort in tbe ordinary expenses of tbe Quartermaster Department, and was subsequently charged to him by tbe accounting officers of the Treasury as money Avliich had been received by him under appropriations of Congress for tbe use and purposes of tbe Quartermaster Department, and was accounted for by him as such.
    Subsequently tbe mass of cotton before referred to Avas charged by officers of tbe Treasury Department Avitb tbe expenses of its transportation, so that tbe gross proceeds of $429,663.39 received by Captain Fort are to be reduced to $421,063.39, which tbe court, on an investigation and adjustment of tbe accounts, finds as tbe amount of tbe net proceeds of tbe mass of 2,209 bales.
    This fund of $421,063.39, constructively in tbe Treasury, as before shown, Avas further reduced by tbe recoAmry of tbe folio Aving judgments in this court, to wit: by Amanda Worthing-ton, administratrix, March 13, 1871, for 814 bales of cotton, $165,673.42; William W. Worthington, April 1,1872, for 222 bales of cotton, $45,177, leaving the sum of $210,212.97 to represent the remaining 1,173 bales of tlie mass; giving, as tlie net proceeds which the claimants should recover in this suit, $179.21 per bale.
    ilZr. J. M. Cutis and Mr. Enoch Totten for the claimants.
    
      Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Simons for the defendants.
   HUNT, J.,

From the findings of fact by the court in this case, it appears that the claimants were the owners of 335 bales of cotton in March, 3 863. This cotton had been secreted on a plantation in Washington County, Mississippi, and had been piled up and put away in October, 1862, in order to preserve it for the claimants. It was at that date taken into possession and held exclusively for them by one Dodds, as their agent, who was a resident of Mississippi, living on the spot, before and during the war. Dodds’ possession of the cotton was disturbed by the military forces of the government, who captured and carried awaj, in March, 1863, 326 bales of the lot. These were afterward sold and the proceeds were paid into the Treasury.

The claimants were minors, domiciliated in Illinois, when the war broke out. Their father and legal guardian was a citizen of that State. lie died in June, 1861, and after that the claimants are not shown to have had any legal custodian appointed to the charge of their estate. They had and could have no knowledge, actual or constructive, of the events just related. Their infancy would relieve them from the effects of such knowledge, if it could be charged to them; and the prohibition and cessation of all intercourse between the sections of the country involved in war effectually prevented it. They continued ignorant of their title to this property, of its delivery to their agent, of his possession of it for them, of its capture and sale — nay, of its very existence — until the year 1870. One of the claimants attained majority in that year and the other was still an infant. Their claim had then become barred by the statute conferring jurisdiction in such cases, but they have been relieved from the effect of the statute by an act of Congress approved June ■22,1874, under which their claim has been referred to this court for its decision.

The right of the claimants to recover rests upon two grounds:

First. They were the sole owners of the cotton in question at the time of its capture.

The cotton was produced on a plantation carried on by a partnership, composed of the claimants and one McHatton. ft had been formed in 1857 for the claimants by their father, as their guardian. The effect of the Avar was to dissolve this partnership, but the entire assets of the concern remained in the State of Mississippi, subject to the control of McHatton alone, and beyond that of the claimants, who Avere in Illinois. In breaking up the concern and Avindingup its affairs, McHatton appropriated to himself the slaves and removed with them into Texas, where he employed them for his own advantage; and in settlement of the. interest of the claimants in the partnership, and in discharge of his indebtedness to them, he left on the plantation and placed in charge of their agent a quantity of cotton produced upon the place, of which that involved in this suit constituted a part. To this cotton he, at the time and subsequently, both during and after the war, renounced all interest in favor of the claimants. The arrangement was assented to and perfected by Dodds, and the cotton Avas reduced to possession and held by him for the exclusive benefit of the claimants, as already stated. They ratified this arrangement as soon as it came to their knowledge, and they now assert their title thus acquired as one of the grounds for recovering in this action.

Of the validity of this title the court entertains no doubt. The principles of public law Avhich control the case are simple and elementary. The recent civil conflict in which our country was unhappily involved has rendered them familiar to the courts, to the legal profession, and to the people of the nation. As soon as the war commenced, all business intercourse between the belligerents, except Avith the special permission of the Government, became illegal and was required to terminate. The prohibition rested not only upon the acknowledged principles of public laAV, but was explicitly announced in the non-intercourse act passed by Congress as early as the 13th of July, 1861.

The effect of this principle Avas to dissolve the copartnership between the claimants and their partner, McHatton. But this dissolution had no regard to things past, but only to things future. The parties were still partners as to the goods and property actually acquired by them as such before the war, and remained bound to account to eacb other for the proceeds of such goods and property so acquired. (Griswold v. Waddington, 16 Johns., 493; Wood v. Braddick, 1 Taunt., 104; Cramer v. United States, 7 C. Cls. R., 304.)

In pursuance of the obligaton imposed upon McHatton by Ms contract, be effected the division or settlement by which the cotton in controversy was intrusted to Dodds, and continued to be held by him as the agent, and for the benefit of the claimants, at the time of its capture. Dodds’ authority had been conferred upon him by McHatton and S. A. Douglas anterior to the war, in May, 1860. Under this authority he acted in receiving and holding possession of the cotton.

If the mandate of Dodds had been created during the war, it would have been invalid, for he could have had no authority conferred upon him without a violation of the prohibition of intercourse between the belligerent parties. But such not having been the case, he was fully empowered to receive the property paid over and delivered to him in discharge of McHatton’s admitted indebtedness to the claimants.

In Grossmeyer v. The United States (9 Wall., 72), the Supreme Court, through Mr. Justice Davis, held: “We are not disposed to deny the doctrine that a resident in the territory of one of the belligerents may have, in time of war, an agent residing in the territory of the other, to whom his debtor could pay his debt in money, or deliver to him property in discharge of it; but in such a case the agency must have been created before the war began, for there is no power to appoint an agent for any purpose after hostilities have actually commenced, and to this effect are all the authorities.” And in the leading cas,e of Griswold v. Waddington, already quoted, Chancellor Kent held that if a creditor, though a subject to the enemy, have a known.agent here, payment may be made to him. (16 Johns., 484; Denniston v. Imbrie, 3 Wash. C. C., 303; Clark v. Morey, 10 Johns., 73; 1 Emerigo,, 567; Connecticut v. Pennsylvania, 1 Pet. C. C., 524.)

It results from these principles that a payment in discharge of an actual indebtedness by one partner to his absent partners, after the dissolution of the concern by war, whether such payment be effected by the delivery of a sum of money or of goods, if made in good faith, and with no purpose to evade the operation of the rights of the Government, during our civil war, is-valid if made to an agent on tbe spot, and if tbe agency bad been created before tbe war.

If tbe money or goods tbns delivered prove to be inadequate to tbe discharge of tbe just claims of tbe absent partners, as might be inferred from tbe facts in this case, it rests with tbe absentees alone, who suffer from tbe injustice, to make complaint, and, when the war terminates, to invoke a remedy at tbe bands of the courts of tbe country. If, however, they rest contented with tbe settlement as effected through their representative, and if, as in tbe instant case, they ratify and confirm it, and base a right of action upon it, as these claimants now do, it is a matter of no concern to tbe Government bow onerous and unfair it may appear to have been.

It would be a grave reproach to tbe law of nations and a cruel hardship to these claimants if considerations like these were to cut them off from a recovery in this case. Bereft at an early age by death of their legal guardian and natural protector, them property, very soon after tbe breaking out of tbe Avar, was entirely in tbe hands and at tbe mercy of their partner. Tbe agent, whom tbe foresight of their, guardian during bis lifetime bad intrusted with tbe supervision of their interests, was tbe only party who could act in their behalf and preserve those interests in part at least. Happily for them, tbe established principles of public law which have been stated interpose for their protection in this extremity, and give full effect and validity to bis acts in the settlement and payment be assented to in their behalf.

Second. Tbe claimants next insist that even in case their title were considered 'invalid, they still have tbe right to recover in their character of surviving partners. McHatton died in 1872. The statute for the relief of the claimants was approved June 22, 1874. It expressly provided “that the claim of Bobert M. and Stephen A. Douglas, for payment for their cotton seized in March, 186.3, be, and the same is hereby, referred to the Court of Claims for its decision.” By this statute the claimants became authorized to institute and maintain this suit.

Without the statute, as surviving partners, they were authorized in law to sue in their own names for the recovery of the property of the partnership. (1 Ohitty’s Pldgs., 19 $ Story on Part., § 346, note.)

Tliere is do sound reason in the technicalities of the law or the principles of justice why they should not be permitted to sue for and recover the entire proceeds of their cotton captured and sold by the Government.

It is therefore ordered that there be judgment in favor of the claimants for the sum of $58,419.20, the proceeds of their cotton, as ascertained in the additional findings of the court this day filed.  