
    SAMUEL P. WALKER'S EXECUTORS AND ROBERTSON TOPP'S ADMINISTRATOR, APPELLANTS, v. THE UNITED STATES.
    (106 U. S. R., 413, on appeal from 12 C. Cls. R., 408.)
    On the 12tli day of April, 1866, Walker, a citizen and resident of Memphis, purchased, in Mobile, from O’Grády, a citizen. and resident of that city —both cities being then in the occupancy of the national forces — a lot of cotton, which, at the time, was in the military lines of the insurgent forces, in the States of Alabama and Mississippi, the inhabitants whereof had been declared to be in insurrection. Between June 30 and Decem■ber 1, 1865, a portion of the cotton, while in the hands of .the planter® from whom it was originally purchased by the Confederate Government, and from the agent of which' O’Grady had purchased, in Mobile, on the 5th day of April, 1865, was seized by Treasury agents of the United States, sold, and the proceeds paid into the Treasury.
    This case was decided by the Court of Claims in'favor of the defendants, upon several grounds, set forth in the opinion reported in 12 C. Cls. B., 408, one of which was—
    V. 'Where planters’bills of sale to the Confederate Government of certain cotton were indorsed over and transferred by the Confederate authorities to one who reindorsed and tránsferred them to the claimant, no title to the cotton was acquired by either the vendor or vendee. The transactions were void as against the United States, and the bills of sale were themselves notice to the purchaser of the illegality of the title.
    Held by the Supreme Court:
    The purchase from O’Grady by Walker was in violation of law, and was. not one out of which could arise, in favor of the latter, any right, as against the United States, which could be enforced in the courts of the Union. ' '
    
      The Supreme Court, affirming the judgment, say: “ Without, therefore, giving other reasons quite apparent upon the record, and which would make it our duty to sustain the judgment of the Court of Claims, we content ourselves with offering it on the grounds indicated” [point Y, above quoted].
   Opinion by

Mr. Justice Harlan.  