
    IRVINE AND FIELD’S REPRESENTATIVES v. THE UNITED STATES.
    No. 3404
    May 21, 1883.
    The claimants’ cotton in Mississippi was seized by the defendants’ officers in February, 1863; taken to Cairo, Ill., libeled under the Confiscation Act, sold by order of court, and the proceeds paid over to another party, claimant thereof, under a decree of the district court.
    Harm:
    The United States are liable under the Abandoned or Captured Property Act of March 12,1863, ch. 120 (12 Stat. L., 820), only for the proceeds of property which actually in some form reached the Treasury.
    
      The following are the facts found by the court:
    I. David Irvine and O. J. Field, deceased, loyal citizens of the United States, were in February, 1863, owners of 67 bales of cotton produced by them on their plantation in Bolivar County, Mississippi, which cotton was in that month seized by a naval force of the United States belonging to the gunboat Conestoga, for which the following receipt was given:
    U. S. Gunboat Conestoga,
    .Mississippi River, Feb. 20, 1803.
    Took on board at Kentucky Landing 67 bales of cotton belonging to Col. C. J. Field, for which did not receive compensation. .
    Thos. O. Seleridge,
    
      Lt. Commander, U. S. Navy.
    
    II. Said 67 bales, with other cotton, were transferred the following day to. the steamer Bose Hambleton, and were sent to Cairo, Ill., by order of Admiral Porter, to Oapt. A. M. Pennock, commanding post, and by hi m received on or before March 2,1863. All of said cotton was turned over to the United States marshal for the southern district of Illinois, April 9, 1863, by Capt. A. M. Pennock, and on the 17th day of said month the United States district attorney for the southern district of Illinois hied in said district court a libel of information in behalf of the United States and A. M. Pennock against the same, under the Act of July 13, 1861, ch. 3 (12 Stat. L., 257). On the 22d day of the same month an amended libel was tiled, under the Act of July 17,1862, ch. 195 (12 Stat. L., 589), which- prayed that said cotton might be condemned and sold. Of said lot so libeled, 67 bales belonged to said Irvine and Field, both now deceased.
    The libel was filed without any previous seizure of the property under any order of the President, nor did the libel allege any Executive order.
    III. Subsequently proceedings were had in admiralty, and 1 said cotton was sold by order of court. On the 16th day of J une, 1863, one B. F. Compton filed a claim in said court, alleging himself to be the owner of same, and the judge of said court ordered the entire proceeds to be paid over to him; which was done. The proportional part of said proceeds which was derived from the 67 bales of cotton owned by said Irvine and .Field, deceased, was $10,454.
    IY. No part of the proceeds of the cotton aforesaid ever reached the Treasury of the United States.
    
      MV. Jemes H. Embry for the claimants:
    Tlie district court of the United States for the southern district of Illinois had no jurisdiction to condemn any cotton under the libel in this case/and it was without jurisdiction to restore the proceeds of cotton under the control of the marshal to any person claiming same; and the decree directing that the money be paid over to B. F. Compton was invalid, and it wa's wrongfully paid to him, as said sum was the proceeds of cotton belonging to said David Irvine and C. J. Field.
    
      Mr. Thomas Simons, Assistant Attorney-General, for the defendants :
    The proceeds of the sale of the cotton in controversy never reached the Treasury of the United States, and so the claimants have no cause of action.
   OPINION.

Richardson, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

David Irvine and C. J. Field, deceased, whose estates are represented by the claimants, owned 67 bales of cotton, which they had raised on their plantation in Mississippi. On the 20th of February, 1863, the cotton was taken by naval officers, put on board of a gunboat, and finally delivered, with other cotton taken in like manner, to the marshal of the United States at Cairo, Ill., where it was libeled under the Confiscation Act (12 Stat. L., 589) and sold by order of court before condemnation.

Thereupon one B. F. Compton appeared before the court and claimed this lot of cotton and some other as his own private property, and by order of court the proceeds of the sale of the same were paid over to him.

The claimants bring this action to recover the amount of the proceeds of these 67 bales.

It was the misfortune of the owners of this cotton that they were inhabitants of rebel territory during the war of the rebellion, amibo were in law rebel enemies, and that the cotton fell into the hands of the Union naval forces engaged in actual warfare. All property so seized might have been confiscated under the statutes, or held as booty under the more rigorous rules of warfare. But Congress, by the passage of the Abandoned or Captured Property Act of March 12,1863 (12 Stat. L., 820), waiving to some extent the severer laws, undertook, through this court, to restore to loyal citizens the proceeds of their captured or abandoned property which actually reached the public Treasury. But it went n o furth er. It gave no remedy to those whose property, although seized by officers of the United States, was lost, stolen, or otherwise so disposed of that no proceeds ever reached the Treasury.

In the case of United States v. Ross (92 U. S. R., 281), the Supreme Court points out what must be established by claimants under that act in order to entitle them to recover. Mr. Justice Strong, speaking for the court, says:

“It is incumbent upon claimants, under the Captured or Abandoned Property Act, to establish by sufficient proof that the property captured or abandoned came into the hands of a Treasury agent; that it was sold; that the proceeds of the sale were paid into the Treasury of the United States; and that he was the owner of the property, and entitled to the proceeds thereof. All this is essential to show that the United States is a trustee for him, holding his money.”

The findings in this case show that the proceeds of the cotton in controversy did not reach the Treasury, but were paid over to another party by order of court, and therefore the petition must be dismissed.  