
    Lida Moore, by her Guardian, v. The United States.
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    
      An infant of tender years inherits and enters upon a plantation in Mississippi. Thereafter a crop of cotton is made on the plantation. The uncle of the infant 
      
      sells it to the Confederate government, hut it is not delivered. Subsequently it is ■ captured and turned over to a Treasury agent. The suit is to recover the proceeds.
    
    "Where an infant of tender years inherits and is possessed of a plantation in Mississippi, the products of the plantation must "be regarded as her property, and she may maintain a suit "by her guardian, under the Abandoned or captured property act, for the proceeds in the Treasury.
    
      Mr. George Taylor for tbe claimant:
    This suit is brought against the United States under the third section of the act of March 12,1863, for the recovery of the net proceeds of fifty-nine bales of cotton, seized by the military authorities of the United States, in the month of June, 1805, in Newton County, Mississippi, and turned over to the United States Treasury agent and sold, and the proceeds paid into the United States Treasury.
    This claim is founded on the following facts :
    First. That claimant owned, and ivas in possession of, fifty-nine bales of cotton, stored upoir her plantation, in Newton County, Mississippi.
    Second. That said fifty-nine bales of cotton, while owned and possessed by claimant, were, in June, 1865, seized and taken possession of by the United States military authorities, and turned over to the United States Treasury agents, and by them sold, and the proceeds paid into the United States Treasury.
    Third. That claimant, and her guardian ad litem, Oliver H. Long, were loyal to the United States during the late rebellion, and at all times, and have never given aid or comfort or assistance to the late rebellion, or to those engaged .therein.
    Fourth. That neither claimant, nor any one for her, has ever made any assignment or transfer of this claim, or any part thereof, or any interest therein.
    The ownership of this cotton was in claimant at the time of seizure. Joseph G-. Moore endeavored at one time to sell this cotton to Charles Baskerville, the confederate cotton agent, but the sale was never consummated ; he never received any bonds or confederate treasury notes or pay in any way whatever, nor did any one else, for claimant j there never was any tender of money or other consideration. The agent, Baskerville, never expressed a willingness to meet his part of the agreement; the time having elapsed before he made any mention of the matter, it was just dropped and considered as though no negotiation had been entered into.
    . Baskerville, the confederate agent, says that no consideration was ever paid said Moore for said cotton by him or any other agent, so far as he knows. “ That he did not comply with his contract as agent of the confederate government.”
    The terms of the contract for sale having never been complied with, no consideration having passed, the contract having been canceled by both contracting parties from the failure and inability to comply with the terms agreed upon — such power of the confederate agent to annul sales having been, as he asserts, often recognized by the confederate government — it is evident that this contract for sale was a mere nullity, and that claimant’s title is not in any way affected thereby.
    Under the laws of Mississippi, no guardian or administrator could make a sale of an infant’s property without an order from the court authorizing .it; and no such order or authority is shown to have been given in this case; so that even hád Moore made a sale valid in other respects, and all its terms complied with, it would have been Aroid for Avaut of lawful authority to make it. The following authorities show that a private sale, by a guardian or administrator, under the laws of Mississippi, is Aroid, and can only be made by order of the probate court, and must be public, and the terms complied with: Revised Code of Miss., 1857, p. 445, p. 4.03, art. 151 and art. 6; Ouble vs. Martin; 1 Howard, Miss. R, p. 508; 1 Smede and Marshal, O. R, p’. 172 ; 24 Miss. R, p. 410; 20 Miss. R, p. 511; 4 Johnson, 6 R, p. 368; 10 Peters R, p. 161; 6 Condensed R, p. 387.
    Fourth. The seizure of the cotton is fully shown.
    When it is considered that claimant is but a child — a girl of ten years of age — under the guardianship and control of another, it would seem hardly necessary to offer any evidence that she was loyal to the Government, but the witnesses have proven that she neATer in any Avay aided, abetted, or gave comfort to the rebellion.
    If necessary to inquire into the loyalty of Long, the guardian ad litem, he is shown to haA'e been eminently loyal.
    Having established ownership, seizure, and loyalty, and sale, and payment of proceeds into the Treasury, and there having been no assignment of the claim, claimant is entitled to recover tbe proceeds under tlie act aforesaid. From the return of the Secretary of the Treasury it appears, that the net proceeds of fbe cotton, collected by O. A. Montross, as stated by the cotton agent at New York, were 1)116.50 in currency. The fifty-seven, bales of claimant, at this rate, would amount to $6,610.50, and this amount we believe to ho. due to the claimant from the United States.
    
      Mr. Joseph A. Ware (with whom was the Assistant Attorney-General) for the defendants:
    The claimant sues for fifty-nine hales of cotton, and alleges that she, in June, 1865, was thé oivner of said cotton. She sties by her guardian ail litem, Oliver H. Long. Love, who is counsel for the claimants, testifies - that Long was appointed guardian of Lida Moore because he was loyal and could sue in •this court. The proof of guardianship is in the clerk’s office, and is not printed. It is- dated July 20, 18GS, and refers ■expressly to the object of the appointment, viz, to save this cotton by procuring a loyal claimant. ■ The so-called guardian lived in Darke Oountjr, Ohio, until 1866, a full year after this cotton had been seized.
    On the other hand, Joseph G. Moore, administrator of the -estate of his brother, who was the father of Lida Moore, sold this lot of cotton to the Confederate States agent. It is true that the sale was not consummated by the payment of the money, because the agent, Baskerville, was not supplied with the new issue of the Confederate States; but the attorney of Joseph G. Moore, one Crusoe, was Avilling to receive confederate money. The sale was completed, and a receipt given, and the bales were marked on each end “C. S. A.” The proof of title in the Confederate States is complete, and the pretext of appointing a loyal man as guardian, so that an action might be brought in this court for this cotton, should not avail.
    It follows from the evidence that the cotton bdfongod to the estate of William Moore, of which Joseph G. Moore was administrator, who sold and delivered it to the Confederate -States. It was, therefore, confiscable property, and if taken by the United States‘was properly-taken. But there is no proof of its seizure, or that the proceeds were paid into the 'Treasury.
   Milligan, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court :

This suit originally stood in tbe name of Lida Moore, an infant, by her guardian ad litem, Oliver H. Long, but subsequently, by leave of the court, the petition was amended, and the action now stands in the name of Oliver H. Long, guardian of the said Lida Moore, minor, &c.

The cause of action is to recover the net proceeds of fifty-nine bales of cotton, alleged to have been seized by 0. A. Montross, a Treasury agent, on the 29th of June, 1805, and thereafter sold, and the proceeds paid into the Treasury of the United States.

The facts on which the case .rests are found to be as follows :

Lida Moore is a minor; she was never married, and has neither father, mother, brother, or sister living. Her mother died about the year 1853; her only brother, aged eight years, in 1858, and her father, in May, 1861. She lived from childhood with her grandmother, up to 1866, in Columbus, Mississippi, and is shown to have derived a considerable estate in negroes., through her mother. William Moore, her father, died intestate, heavily involved in debt, and his brother, Joseph G-. Moore, administered on his estate.

At the death of the claimant’s father he was the owner in fee of a considerable landed estate in Mississippi, which descended to the said Lida, and the cotton involved in this case was raised in the years 1862-’63, on the lands so descended to. her, by the labor of her own servants.

The cotton was stored on the plantation, under shelter, and in 1865 seized as O. S. A. cotton, under the authority of 0. A., Montross, the United States Treasury agent at Jackson, Mississippi, and afterward fifty-seven bales instead of fifty-nine were shipped to him at that place, and there turned over to his care.

It further appears that, prior to the seizure of the cotton, Joseph G-. M%ore, the uncle of the claimant, and the administrator of her father’s estate, assumed to sell the cotton now in question to one Charles Baskcrville, a rebel purchasing agent for the Confederate States, and that the terms of the sale were agreed upon, but the cotton was never formally delivered to. the agent — he never paid anything for it — and afterward the,, trade was canceled by the parties.

But there is no evidence even tending to prove that the uncle had any authority whatever to lhake such a sale, or that the claimant was in any way connected with it. At that time she was only about twelve years of age, and incapable of giving-consent to the transaction.

The claimant’s loyalty is but slightly proven. It could not perhaps have been otherwise, for at the breaking out of the war she was only about ten years oí" age, and could not have had at that time any established character or settled opinions in respect to it. It does, however, appear that she never gave any aid or comfort to the rebellion, which the court regard, under the circumstances of this case, sufficient.

The letters of guardianship to Long are regularly proved-; and on this state of facts there are no questions of serious difficulty arising on the record. The ownership of the cotton is nob questioned in argument by the Assistant Attorney-General; nor do we think it could successfully have been controverted, for the law cast the title to the land on which the cotton was produced on the claimant, and she cultivated it with the labor of her own servants. . The fruits were hers, notwithstanding the administrator, in default of personal assets, might, under a regular proceeding, convert the land itself into assets to pay the debts of the estate. But'this record discloses no such proceeding, and we are compelled to treat the title as resting in the heir, and deal with it accordingly.

The title to the cotton being fixed' in the claimant, the attempted prrvate sale' of it by Joseph G. Moore, the claimant’s uncle, to the Confederate States agent, amounts to nothing. He had no authority over claimant’s .property, and could not in any sense, either as administrator or guardian, under the laws of Mississippi, have lawfully transferred it at private sale to the rebel government. (Revised Code of Mississippi of 1857, section xi, p. 445, and section xviii, art. 151, p. 463.)

The objection that the proceeds of the cotton never reached the Treasury cannot be sustained. We have uniformly held, since I have been on the bench, that when the cotton was fairly traced to the hands of a Treasury agent, the law presumed the payment of the proceeds of the sale into the Treasury-. In this case, the evidence establishes to our satisfaction that the cotton reached the hands of C. A. Montross, the Treasury agent at Jackson, Mississippi, and there is nothing in the record that leads us to doubt that he did not faithfully discharge his duty in respect to it.

The loyalty of the claimant, as we have ruled in the finding of facts, is sufficiently proven, and nothing remains but to ascertain the amount for which the judgment should be rendered.

The net proceeds of cotton collected by C. A. Montross and sold in New York appear to be $110.50 per bale, which gives the judgment for fifty-seven bales, $5,640.50, and it will be so entered.  