
    TEBBETTS’ CASE. Horace B. and Jno. C. Tebbetts v. The United States.
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    
      The claimants join as parties plaintiff in an action to recocer the proceeds of captured property. The petition alleges that Sorace owned the cotton, hut that the claim has teen assigned to John, and that the suit is prosecuted for the use of the assignee. Thepetitionis verified by the assignor, but no assignment or transfer is proven. The loyalty of both, the ownership of the assignor, the capture of the property, and the amount of the proceeds, are fully shown.
    
    Where "both assignor and assignee of a claim, arising- under the “Abandoned or captured property aet,” (12 Sfcat. L., p.-820,) join as eo-elaimants, the assignor verifying- the petition, and the petition alleging- that the suit is brought for the use of the assignee, it is not necessary that the assignment be proven.
    
      Messrs. Hughes, Denver efi Peek for the claimants :
    ' This is an action brought to recover the proceeds of ninety-two (92) bales of cotton, under the fourth section of the act of Congress approved March 12,1863.
    The claimant, Horace B. Tebbetts, owned and cultivated three plantations in Louisiana, known as the “ Sauvterre,”- the “ Bodein,” and the “ Hollybrook ” plantations; and the cotton in controversy was seized from these plantations, carried to Lake Providence, Louisiana, then turned over to Captain J. G-. Klinek, and by him shipped to Colonel Eddy, at Memphis, where it was sold by that officer.
    The Treasury Department has returned an account of the sales of 919 bales of cotton b3r Colonel Eddy, including the cottons described in the petition.
    The net proceeds of this sale were $216 14 per bale.
    The ninety-two bales which Captain Klinek sent forward from the claimant’s plantation, produced, therefore, $19,884 88.
    Former rules returned to this court show that these proceeds were covered into the Treasury.
    The only remaining question is that of the loyalty of the claimant.
    Upon this point the proof is abundant and conclusive.
    Mr. Tebbetts lived upon his plantation in Louisiana until the Federal Army came there. in the spring of 1863, and then he removed to New York City until the hostilities were ended.
    We have taken the testimony of a number of witnesses at each of these places, ail'd his conduct challenges the strictest scrutiny.
    All of his neighbors and servants in Louisiana, both those of Union and rebel proclivities, agree that if there was a Union man in the South, he was one; and after coming to New York he is vouched for in the strongest terms by distinguished citizens.
    
      Mr. li. S. Sale, special counsel of the Treasury, for the defendants :
    The claim is for the proceeds of ninety-two bales of cotton, captured in March, 1863, in Carroll Parish, Louisiana. The petition alleges the cotton to have been the property of Horace B. Tebbetts, who is alleged to have sold and assigned the claim to John C. Tebbetts, and the suit is stated to be prosecuted for the solo use and benefit of John 0. Tebbetts.
    It is submitted that the bringing of the suit in its present form cannot be countenanced in the practice of this court. That the two claimants, having no joint interest, but standing simply as vendor and vendee of the chose in action, should join in the suit, is believed to be without precedent in any court, either of law or equity.
    It is further submitted that, under the abandoned and captured property act,- a suit will not be entertained by this court for the use or benefit of a mere purchaser, not showing auy preexistent indebtedness or other sufficient equity to justify the assignment to himself, but standing on the record as a purchaser for purposes of speculation only. Such a transfer and prosecution for the benefit of the assignee is barratrous at the common law, and should be especially discountenanced as to claims against the United States.
    As to the loyalty of Horace B. Tebbetts down to his appearance in New York, in the year 1863, it is submitted that, after striking-out the large amount of incompetent testimony, by way of hearsay, opinion, and the like, no sufficient evidence remains to satisfy this court, under the requirements of the statute, that he never gave aid or comfort to the rebellion.
   Casey, Oh. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

In 1869 Horace B. Tebbetts, who was a northern man, and always resided in the North till then, owned one or more cotton plantations in the South, in the State of Louisiana. And in that year he went South and took up his residence on one of his plantations. He continued to reside there until 1863, when the Union forces penetrated into that part of the South, when he removed with'his family to New York City,- and he did not return South during the rebellion. The evidence of the capture, by the Army, of ninety-two bales from the plantations of the claimant, is.distinctly proved; it was shipped to Colonel Eddy, United States quartermaster at Memphis, Tennessee, was there sold by him, and the proceeds accounted for .by him in his curreht accounts as quartermaster.

The loyalty of Horace B. Tebbetts is abundantly sustained, by witnesses of the highest character and credibility, both while living North and South, and during the entire period' bf the war. The capture and ownership of the ninety-two bales' is fully proved, and we are satisfied that the proceeds are in the Treasury; and that the proofs in the case fulfill all the conditions prescribed by the act of Congress to entitle the claimant to recover.

No assignment or transfer to John C.-Tebbetts is shown or proved in this record.' The suit "is brought and the petition was sworn to by Horace B. Tebbetts, and in that he alleges an assignment of the claim to John 0. Tebbetts, and that the suit is prosecuted for his use. The loyalty of John C. Tebbetts is clearly established, and we can see nothing in the way of the claimant’s recovery. The net proceeds of the cotton sold by Colonel Eddy at Memphis were $216 14 per bale, and the ninety-two bales of the claimant therefore amounted to the sum of $19,884 88, and for this a judgment is to be rendered in his favor.  