
    (5 Court of Claims R., p. 113; 13 Wallace R., p. 633)
    Edward Pugh, Appellant, v. The United States, Appeldees.
    
      On the claimant's Appeal.
    
    
      The petitioner alleges possession of his plantation in Louisiana until, in October, 1862, “ tlie United States illegally, violently, and forcibly took possession of said plantation against tlie consent of said petitioner, whom they dispossessed ; and continued to hold possession thereof until January, 1866, on ■ the false and illegal pretext that the property was abandoned by the owner.” Also, that there was on the plantation certain personal property which “ was destroyed or taken and carried away by the United States and those agents who were put in charge of the plantation, so that the petitioner has been deprived of it,” and “ the United States have become liable in law to pay him the value thereof,” $-c. Also, “that during the time the plantation aforesaid was in the possession of the United States,” <fc., “it was rented out by the United States to persons who made largo crops” ¿Jr., “worth” $3Q,000, which “the United States are justly and legally liable bo pay him for.” The defendants move to dismiss for want of jurisdiction. The Court of Claims decides that where a petitioner does not in terms profess to seek relief under the “ Abandoned or Captured property Act,” (12 Stat. L.,p. 820; 13 ib.,p. 375,) and where he does not show a talcing of private properly for publie use, nor that the defendants received rent to the use of the claimant for his plantation leased by them to third persons, but simply contains the elements of a declaration in trespass quare clasum frogit, viz, piossession by the claimant — an entry illegal, violent, forcible, by the defendants — the Court of Claims has not jurisdiction of the action. Judgment for the defendants. The claimant appeals.
    
    Where a petition alleges that the Government took and destroyed property during the rebellion, in one of the insurrectionary States, the presumption is that it was done by the army, and hence that the Court of Claims is restricted from jurisdiction by the Act 4th July, 1864, (13 Stat: L., p. 381.) Neither will an allegation that the Government leased the claimant’s plantation save the jurisdiction, under the Act 2d July, 1864, (ib., p. 375,) if the leasing is alleged merely as an incident of unlawful appropriation.
    
      Mr. T. ■/'. 'Durant for the claimant.
    
      Mr.R. (r. If ale, special counsel of the Treasury, for the defendants.
   Mr. Chief Justice Chase

delivered tbe opinion of the court:

This is an appeal from the Court of Claims.

The substantial averments of the petition are these:

First: That the United States, during the period of the late civil war, illegally, violently, and forcibly took possession of the petitioner’s plantation, in the State Louisiana, on the false pretext that it had been abandoned by the owner, and held it until January, 1866, during which time the United States, and the agents placed in charge of the plantation, destroyed and carried away the property of the petitioner to the value of $42,508; and,

Secondly: That the United States, during-the same period, rented the plantation to sundry persons who made large crops, worth $15,000 or $30,000.

This petition was dismissed by the Court of Claims for want of jurisdiction.

The destruction of property complained of -was during the war and in one of the States engaged in the rebellion, and the presumption, in the absence of inconsistent allegations, that it was by the military forces of the United States.

It is clear that a petition for compensation for injuries of this character could not be sustained in the Court of Claims, for the demand plainly grows £- out of the destruction or appropriation of or damage to property by the Army or Navy engaged in the suppression of the rebellion,” and is excluded from the cognizance of that court by the express terms of the Act oj July 4,1864. (13 Stat. L., p. 381.)

■ But it is- insisted that the court had at least jurisdiction of the case made by the petition in respect to the leasing of the plantation, under the amendment to the Captured or abandoned property Act made by the second and third sections of the Act of July 2,1864. (13 Stat. L., p. 375.; These sections provide for leasing abandoned lands by the agents of the Treasury Department, and the payment of the not amounts of rents collected into the Treasury. But the petition in this case makes the leasing an incident only to the unlawful appropriation and spoliation of the plantation. It does not allege any leasing by the agents of the Treasury Department, or that any rents were collected by them or paid into the Treasury.

It is plain, therefore, that the petition does not state a case within the j urisdiction of the Court of Claims. If the petitioner has any claim, upon the Government he must seek relief from Congress.

The decree dismissing the petition must bo affirmed.  