
    John N. Mott v. The United States.
    
      On the- Proofs.
    
    
      The claimant, residing in Mobile, shows, by a large number of acquaintances and associates with whom he was in daily intercourse, that he did not'gire aid or comfort to the rebellion. He shows that he owned the cotton a long time before capture, and traces it to New York. The Secretary of the Treasury shows the average of Mobile cotton, but not the “ net proceeds” of this particular lot.
    
    I. The concurrent testimony of a large number of acquaintances and associates, with whom a party is in daily intercourse, is satisfactory evidence of loyalty under the “Abandoned or captured property act.” 12 Stat. L., p. 820.
    II. Where a loyal claimant, under the “ Abandoned or captured property act,” (12 Stat. L.,p. 820,) traces his cotton into the possession of the proper agents of the treasury, and it appears there to have been mingled with other cotton, so that the “ net proceeds” cannot be precisely ascertained, he will recover the average of the “net proceeds” of all the cotton so intermingled.
    Mr. E. McAllister and Messrs. Chifm an and Hosmer for claimant
    This cause is founded upon the act of Congress approved March 12, 1863, section 3, and is before the court by original petition.
    The petitioner was' the owner of 53 bales of cotton, stored in warehouses at Mobile, Alabama. About the 15th day of May, 1865, this cotton was seized by the military authorities at said city, and by them shipped to New York city, where it was subsequently sold, and the proceeds thereof paid into the United States treasury, where they now are. This action is brought to recover from the-United States the money so paid into the United States treasury.
    The evidence very clearly establishes the requisites to our recovery. The cotton in question was purchased by the petitioner in order to turn to account funds which came to him in the regular course of his-business, and with the exception of four bales, bought some ten years before the rebellion, was all he ever owned. It was stored after purchase, and so remained with no attempt to dispose of it, until seized and converted by the government. There will be no question made, we suppose, as to the petitioner’s being the only person entitled to the proceeds. No claim conflicting with his is presented by any one; but all the evidence, both of citizen witnesses and government officers, indicates that the government has never questioned Mr. Mott’s priority of ownership. The seizure and conversion, and subsequent sale in New York by treasury agents, appear from the official reports of the department. It follows, from the report of the Treasury Department, also, that the proceeds were paid into the hands of the Secretary of that department, and are now in his custody. The report also shows that the amount of these proceeds, ascertained as near as possible, is ¡$183 33 per bale, which, multiplied by the number of bales in controversy, gives the sum of nine thousand seven hundred and sixteen dollars and sixty-six cents, ($9,716 66.) This is the net amount due petitioner, according to the showing of the government. As we understand the decision of the court in similar cases, we must content ourselves with this report, and are estopped from showing aliunde the amount which our cotton in fact realized, or what it was worth when converted. Nor are we permitted to question the reported disbursements of the department in the matter of acting as our factor or broker, in selling this cotton. .
    The loyalty of the petitioner we are inclined to assujne as beyond dispute. He presents the testimony of nine of liis neighbors, who have known him long and intimately. Most of them were Union men, while some of them speak from a different standpoint. All, however, concur in showing that petitioner was not only in fact a loyal man, but that his reputation among all classes was that of a loyal man. It would be difficult to show conduct more consistently loyal than has been shown in this instance, and we forbear further remark.
    The peculiar jurisdiction of this court, which is purely statutory, and the provisions of the law under which alone we can claim, seem to preclude the application of general principles of law, applicable to cases of this character as between man and man. Besides, the law of tbis case is res acljudicata by tbis court, and it would not be becoming us to question it were we inclined to do so; and to repeat tbe reasoning of tbe court or of counsel, as heretofore presented, would be idle.
    The Assistant SOLICITOR for tbe defendants.
   Peck, J.,

delivered the opinion of tbe court:

John N. Mott, of Mobile, Alabama, was tbe owner of 53 bales of cotton, which were taken fronqhim by tbe United States forces soon after tbe capture of that city, in 1S65.

Mr. Mott has proved by his acquaintances and associates in Mobile, with whom be was in daily intercourse, that he did not give aid or comfort to tbe rebellion; that be avowed, whenever be could safely do so, bis attachment to tbe federal government of tbe United States.

It is also clearly proved that be owned the bales of cotton claimed by him for a long time prior to the capture of tbe city, and that it was acquired by him in tbe regular course of bis business, and without any appearance of improper motives or conduct on bis part in making tbe acquisition.

The 53 bales of cotton are traced by tbe claimant to the possession of tbe government agents. After tbe cotton in question was in possession of tbe ageuts of tbe government, by neglect or design, it was mingled with other bales of cotton and sold, so that there are no means of ascertaining the price which tbe cotton taken from claimant actually brought, when it was afterwards sold in tbe city of New York by the government. Hence tbis claimant can only recover tbe average of tbe net proceeds” which tbe intermingled bales of cotton brought when they were sold. It is shown by a report from tbe -Secretary of the Treasury that tbe price realized by tbe United States for each bale of Mobile cotton was $183 33. This will fix tbe amount which tbis claimant can recover, and upon this report of the Secretary of tbe Treasury a judgment will be rendered in favor of tbe claimant •for tbe sum of $9,71G 49 for tbe net proceeds of bis 53 bales of cotton.  