
    GALLAUDET’S CASE. James Gallaudet v. The United States.
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    
      The owners of a mass of coüon, being partners in trade, present it as a gift, without consideration, to a friend. A transfer is made on the hooks of the firm, anda toare-housereeeipl given, describing the cotton specifically, and stating it to he held on storage for the donee. It remains subject to his order until the capture of Savannah, and is then reported by him as his properly. He brings his suit for the proceeds in the Treasury.
    
    A gift inter vivos, Toy one competent to give property which he has the right to give to one competent to receive it, completed by transfer of possession, draws to it, in the absence of fraud, the consequence of an executed contract. Whore no third person is interested, and the parties who made the gift do not question the transaction, the Government is the trustee of captured property thus given, and the donee may maintain a suit for the proceeds of it under the Abandoned or captured property Act.
    
    
      The Reporters1 statement of tlie case:
    The facts of this case sufficiently appear in the opinion read.
    
      Mr. John J. Weed for the claimant:
    It is conceded that theclaimantacquired his title to the cotton in controversy by gift, from his two sous-in-law, Irwin and Hardee. Such a transfer of personal property is valid, and passes to the donee a perfect title to the property which was the subject of the gift.
    All the conditions of a complete and valid gift exist here. The donors were the owners of the property which was the subject of gift, and the claimant was a person competent to receive the gift. The execution and delivery to the claimant of the warehouse receipt by the donor was a complete delivery of the property specified therein, and the assignment and transfer of that receipt would have divested the claimant of his right and title to the property for which it called.
    
      Mr. Alexander Johnston (with whom was the Assistant Attorney-General) for the defendants.
   Nott, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

In September, 1864, Messrs. Irwin and Hardee, the owners of a mass of cotton consisting of thirty-two bales, presented the same as a gift, without consideration, to the claimant. A transfer of the cotton was made upon the books of the firm, and a warehouse receipt was given to the claimant by them, describing the cotton specifically, and stating it as received from him on storage. It remained subject to his order until the capture of Savannah, and was then reported by him as his property to the quartermaster.

The only point suggested by the defendants is, that the title did not pass, and that the claimant did not become the owner within the intent aud meaning of the Abandoned, or captured property Act.

We think the point cannot be sustained. A gift inter vivos, by one competent to give property which he has a right to give to one competent to receive it, completed by transfer of possession, draws to it, in the absence of fraud upon creditors, the consequences of an executed contract. In this case there are no third persons interested. There is no creditor averring that the transfer was made to defraud him. The parties who made the gift do not question the transaction, and the Government is the trustee not for one more than the other, but for whom it may concern.

The judgment of the court is that the claimant recover the proceeds in the Treasury of thirty-two bales of sea-island cotton, captured in Savannah, being $231.79 per bale, amounting in the aggregate to $7,417.28.  