may be dispensed with, it is certain that there can be no sale of personal chattels without a specific identification of the thing sold. Which of the whole number of bales could the purchaser say was his? For which of them could he have been compelled to pay? And there is no evidence that Holmes ever received the cotton or any part of it, or asserted any possession, though the sale was on credit, and if the property was his principal's he was entitled to remove it at once to a market.

Our attention has been called to the letter addressed by Elgee to Holmes afterwards, which it is argued was itself a sale. It was dated Oct. 8, 1863, and was as follows:

DEAR SIR: It having been agreed on between you and myself that I sell to you all the cotton of Elgee and Chambers now baled and under shed, for the price of fifteen pounds ster: ling per bale, payable in Liverpool, you will cause the same to be placed to my credit with James A. Jackson & Co., of Liverpool. CAPTAIN TRUMAN HOLMES, Present. J. K. ELGEE.

This was not found by the court to have been the contract between the parties. It refers to the former agreement, and evidently it was intended as a direction where to pay the price of the cotton, if any should be got out, and if any purchase money should become due. It had no other purpose. It was not even a delivery order. Much less can it be regarded as a bill of sale. And there is no finding that it was accepted. The only contract, therefore, respecting the sale of the cotton to Holmes upon which the executrix of Dr. Nutt can rely, is that found by the court to have been made; a contract for the sale of so much of the 2,100 bales as Holmes should get out in safety to a market, and that contract passed no property in the cotton.

This disposes of the whole case. The prop erty in the cotton was in Elgee, and neither of the contracts proved devested him of his ownership. The result is that his personal 198*] *representatives are entitled to a judg ment for the entire proceeds of the cotton held

in trust for the owner.

The judgment of the Court of Claims is reversed, and the record is remitted, with instructions to dismiss the petitions of Woodruff and Bouchard, and Julia A. Nutt, executrix, and to enter a judgment in favor of the personal representatives of John K. Elgee, for the sum found in the Treasury, the net proceeds of the sale of the cotton.

Dissenting, Mr. Justice Bradley, and Mr.

Justice Hunt.

by military authority, of courts for the trial of
civil causes during the civil war, in conquered por-
tions of the insurgent States.

3. Whether a State Court acted within its juris-
diction or not, is a question exclusively for the
state tribunals.

4. The legislation of a State may validate the
judgments of a State Court in fact, though in giv-
ing the judgments the court may have transcended
its jurisdiction.
[No. 202.]

Argued Feb. 24, 1875. Decided May 3, 1875.
IN ERROR to the Supreme Court of the

State of Louisiana.

The case is stated in the opinion of the court, and, more fully, in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Field.

Messrs. E. & A. C. Janin and Louis Janin for plaintiffs in error:

New Orleans, at the date of the proceedings instituted by the Union Bank against the Mechanics' and Traders' Bank, was in the peaceable possession of Gen. Butler, and had been since May 6, 1862.

The Venice, 2 Wall., 258, 17 L. ed. 866.

Circassian, 2 Wall., 158, 17 L. ed. 802; U. S.
This restored the national territory. The

1872, 40; Woods, Circuit Court J., and the
v. Stark, 11 Am. Law Reg. (N. S.) for Jan.,
cases there referred to.
Wall., 129, 19 L. ed. 651.
The Grapeshot, 9

New Orleans was then national territory; it
had been purged of secession; it was at that
time in constant communication with the
North and the West, and with the seat of gov-
ernment. Congress was in session, and there
was daily communication between the two
points. Under these circumstances, where was
the necessity to appoint a judge to try civil
cases between two citizens of New Orleans, in
the Union Bank could not have obtained judg-
June, 1862? If it had been a promissory note,
ment in the ordinary course of the courts, in
the short delay that occurred between the suit
and the judgment before Mr. Justice Bell, ac-
celerated as he was by "orders" from head-

18 L. ed. 281, as we have seen, was for what
The case of Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall., 2,
the government alleges to be a millitary of-
the United States." The whole attempt to
fense: "Conspiring against the Government of
sustain the pretension to try the prisoner by
a military commission was predicated on the
plea of necessity and, as will be seen, it failed.
In the proceeding against the Union Bank
there was no necessity.

But the extraordinary part of the proceeding
is, that the provost judge, who was doubtless
a gentleman and. a good lawyer, although as
a decider of cases he was a mere judicial waif,
decided the case in favor of the Mechanics' and
& TRADERS' BANK, Traders' Bank. His judgment was not ap-
Plffs. in Err.,



THE UNION BANK OF LOUISIANA. (See S. C., 22 Wall., 276-308.)

Commanding General, power of to appoint a judge-creation of courts by military authority-jurisdiction.

1. The Commanding General of the Army which captured New Orleans, and held it in May, 1862, had authority, after the capture of the city, to establish a court and appoint a judge with power to try and adjudicate civil causes.

2. The Constitution did not prohibit the creation,

pealed, nor was error taken to General Butler;
but the General ordered him to open the case
and reverse his own decision; and this he did,
and, as he says, "under orders." Who was
the judge? Surely not Bell, for his will, his
mind, his judgment were at variance with his
decree. We think it clear that General Butler
was the judge, and that Bell did but record
his decree.

If this be so we have the military com-
mander of a recaptured city ordering one
citizen to pay a sum of money to another.


For the law to sustain him see his brief 4 Wall. 8, 18 L. ed. 282, et seq. He was, at the time, supreme legislator, supreme judge and supreme executive. And all without any necessity whatever. U. S. v. Ferreira, 13 How., 41. This, then, is simply a judgment, rendered by a court which never had any jurisdiction and which, without leaving a record of its proceedings, has gone out of existence. We say that its decree was judicially inoperative, and the money paid under it, in virtue of the military order, subjecting the citizen of New Orleans to obedience to its mandates, but paid under protest, did not devest the Mechanics' and Traders' Bank of the ownership of the money so paid; nor did it give the Union Bank a right to it.

Gilbert v. Hollinger, 14 Ann., 445; Beard v. Morancy, 3 Rob., 121; Holmes v. Henkin, 6 Rob., 54; Dufour v. Camfranc, 11 Mart., 610; Elliott v. Peirsol, 1 Pet., 340; Civ. Code, 2129,

[blocks in formation]

The facts of this case, so far as they are necessary to a proper understanding of the question raised, are the following:

In May, 1862, after the capture of New Orleans by the United States army, Gen. Butler, then in command of *the army at that [*294 place, issued a general order appointing Major J. M. Bell, volunteer aid de-camp, of the division staff, provost judge of the city, and directed that he should be obeyed and respected accordingly. The same order appointed Captain J. H. French provost-marshal of the city, and Captain Stafford deputy provost-marshal. A few days after this order the Union Bank lent to the plaintiffs the sum of $130,000, and subsequently, the loan not having been repaid, brought suit before the provost judge to recover the debt. The defense was taken that It is manifest that the national authorities the judge had no jurisdiction over civil cases, never supposed that General Butler had the but judgment was given against the borpower to appoint a provost judge to try cases rowers, and they paid the money under protest. between the citizens of New Orleans. If so, To recover it back is the object of the present why did the President, in October, 1862, ap- suit, and the contention of the plaintiffs is that point Judge Peabody to exercise those judicial the judgment was illegal and void, because the functions? That the President, as Com- Provost Court had no jurisdiction of the case. mander-in-Chief, had the constitutional au- The judgment of the district court was against thority to establish a provisional court in time the plaintiffs, and this judgment was affirmed of war, is conceded. Ît is so decided in Texas by the Supreme Court of the State. To this v. White, 7 Wall., 700, 19 L. ed. 227; and in The Grapeshot, 9 Wall., 129, 19 L. ed. 651.


In the latter case the Chief Justice said: "It was a military duty to be performed by the President, as Commander-in-Chief, and intrusted as such with the direction of the military force by which the occupation was held." But, because the Constitution gave the power to the President, to appoint judges, it does not follow that every commanding general, in every military district, may do so.

affirmance error is now assigned.

The argument of the plaintiffs in error is that the establishment of the Provost Court, the appointment of the judge, and his action as such in the case brought by the Union Bank against them are invalid, because in violation of the Constitution of the United States, which vests the judicial power of the General Government in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish, and that under this constitutional provision they were entitled to

judgment of the Provost Court. Thus, it is claimed, a federal question is presented, and the highest court of the State having decided against the immunity claimed, our jurisdiction is invoked.

In the case of The Grapeshot, supra, this court, in discussing the authority of the Presi-immunity from any liability imposed by the dent to establish a provisional court in New Orleans, refers to Leitensdorfer v. Webb, 20 How., 176, 15 L. ed. 891, and incidentally to Jecker v. Montgomery, 13 How., 498; 18 How., 110, 15 L. ed. 311, and Cross v. Harrison, 16 How., 164. Leitensdorfer's case is altogether different from this.

In that case the appointment and the authority were received from the President, and it did not originate with General Kearney. If General Kearney had of his own mere volition appointed a civil judge, then the case would have been like that of Jecker v. Montgomery, and would have been decided, doubtless, in the

same manner.

Mr. P. Phillips, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Strong delivered the opinion of the court:

Assuming that the case is thus brought within our right to review it, the controlling question is, whether the commanding general of the army which captured New Orleans and held it in May, 1862, had authority after the capture of the city to establish a court and appoint a judge with power to try and adjudicate civil causes. Did the Constitution of "the United States prevent the creation [*295 of civil courts in captured districts during the war of the rebellion, and their creation by military authority?

This cannot be said to be an open question. The subject came under consideration by this This case originated in the Sixth District court in The Grapeshot, 9 Wall., 129, 19 L. ed. Court of the Parish of Orleans, in the State of 651, where it was decided that when, during Louisiana, where the plaintiffs sued the Union the late civil war, portions of the insurgent Bank, to recover $130,000 which they had paid territory were occupied by the national forces, to the defendants under compulsion of the judg- it was within the constitutional authority of ment given by the Provost Court of New Or- the President, as Commander-in-Chief. to esleans in 1862, when the city was occupied by tablish therein provisional courts for the hearthe United States forces under General and determination of all causes arising unFailing in the District Court, the plaintiffs der the laws of the State or of the United


States, and it was ruled that a court instituted the trial of civil causes during the civil war in by President Lincoln for the State of Louisiana, conquered portions of the insurgent States. with authority to hear, try and determine civil | The establishment of such courts is but the causes, was lawfully authorized to exercise exercise of the ordinary rights of conquest. such jurisdiction. Its establishment by mili- The plaintiffs in error, therefore, had no contary authority was held to be no violation of stitutional immunity against subjection to the constitutional provision that "The judicial *the judgments of such courts. They [*297 power of the United States shall be vested in argue, however, that if this be conceded, still one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts Gen. Butler had no authority to establish such as the Congress may from time to time ordain a court; that the President alone, as Comand establish." That clause of the Constitu- mander-in-Chief, had such authority. We do tion has no application to the abnormal con-not concur in this view. Gen. Butler was in dition of conquered territory in the occupancy command of the conquering and occupying of the conquering army. It refers only to army. He was commissioned to carry on the courts of the United States, which military war in Louisiana. He was, therefore, invested courts are not. As was said in the opinion of with all the powers of making war, except so the court, delivered by Chief Justice Chase, far as they were denied to him by the Comin The Grapeshot, "It became the duty of the mander-in-Chief, and among these powers, as National Government, wherever the insurgent we have seen, was that of establishing courts power was overthrown, and the territory which in conquered territory. It must be presumed had been dominated by it was occupied by the that he acted under the orders of his superior national forces, to provide, as far as possible, officer, the President, and that his acts, in the so long as the war continued, for the security prosecution of the war, were the acts of his of persons and property and for the adminis- Commander-in-Chief. tration of justice. The duty of the National Again; it is argued that even if the Provost Government in this respect was no other than Court was rightly established, it had no juristhat which devolves upon a regular belligerent, diction over civil causes. It must be conceded occupying during war the territory of another that the order by which the court was created belligerent. It was a military duty, to be did not define expressly the nature and extent performed by the President, as Commander-in-of its jurisdiction. And it is also true that a Chief, and intrusted as such with the direction Provost Court ordinarily has cognizance only of the military force by which the occupation of minor criminal offenses; but that a larger was held." jurisdiction may be given to it, by the power 296*] *Thus it has been determined that which brings it into being, is undeniable. the power to establish, by military authority, Whether a larger jurisdiction was conferred courts for the administration of civil as well in the case now under consideration, we are as criminal justice in portions of the insurgent not called upon to determine. It is not a States occupied by the national forces, is pre- federal question. The Supreme Court of cisely the same as that which exists when for- Louisiana decided that Gen. Butler had a eign territory has been conquered and is oc- right, after the capture of New Orleans, in cupied by the conquerors. What that power May, 1862, to appoint a judge to try civil is has several times been considered. In Leitens-cases, notwithstanding the provisions of the dorfer v. Webb, 20 How., 176, 15 L. ed. 891, Constitution. Having determined that he had may be found a notable illustration. Upon such a right, we have disposed of the question the conquest of New Mexico, in 1846, the com- which entitles the case to be heard here, and manding officer of the conquering army, in vir- it is not for us to inquire whether the Provost tue of the power of conquest and occupancy, Court acted within its jurisdiction or not. and with the sanction and authority of the That is a question exclusively for the state triPresident, ordained a provisional government bunals. In determining, as the State Supreme for the country. Exec. Doc., 2d sess. 29 Cong., Court did, that the plaintiffs had no such convol. 3, Doc. 19. The ordinance created courts stitutional immunity as they claim, there was with both civil and criminal jurisdiction. It no error. If in other respects errors were comdid not undertake to change the municipal mitted, they are not reviewable by this court, laws of the territory, but it established a ju unless they present some other federal question. dicial system with a superior or appellate court, and with circuit courts, the jurisdiction of which was declared to embrace, first, all criminal causes that should not otherwise be provided for by law; and second, original exclusive cognizance of all civil cases not cognizable before the prefects and alcaldes. But though these courts and this judicial system were established by the military authority of the United States, without any legislation of Congress, this court ruled that they were law fully established. And there was no express order for their establishment emanating from the Fresident or the Commander-in-Chief. The ordinance was the act of Gen. Kearney, the commanding officer of the army occupying the conquered territory.

In view of these decisions it is not to be questioned that the Constitution did not prohibit the creation by military authority of courts for

*Such a question the plaintiff's allege [*298 is presented. Assuming that the judgment given by the Provost Court in favor of the Union Bank was void for want of jurisdiction in the court, they argue that when they paid the sum adjudged against them the law raised an implication of a promise by the Union Bank to refund it, and that the obligation of this contract was impaired by the 149th article of the State Constitution of 1868. That article ordained that all judgments and judicial sales, marriages and executed contracts made in good faith and in accordance with existing laws in the State, rendered, made or entered into between the 26th day of January, 1861, and the adoption of the Constitution, should be valid. But if the court was lawfully established, as the Supreme Court of the State decided, the law raised no such promise as is asserted, and the validating clause of the Constitution, there

fore, impaired no contract obligation. Besides, we cannot admit that the legislation of a State may not validate the judgments of a court in fact, though in giving the judgments the court may have transcended its jurisdiction. Nothing more need be added. Sufficient has been said to show that, in our opinion, the plaintiffs have been denied no right or immunity secured to them by the Constitution and laws of the United States. If there is any error in the record, it is one of which this court can take no cognizance.

The judgment is affirmed.

Mr. Justice Field, dissenting:

I am unable to agree with a majority of the court in this case. I do not differ from them so much in the judgment rendered as in the reasons assigned for it. Had they placed their decision on the ground that the plaintiff Bank owed the money it was compelled by the decree of the Provost Court to pay and, therefore, could not recover it back, however illegal the action of that tribunal, I should have made no objection to their judgment. But as they pass by this ground and not only affirm the legality 299*] of the establishment of the Provost Court by the commanding general at New Orleans, which is not seriously controverted, but the validity of the jurisdiction in civil cases exercised by that tribunal, I must dissent from their opinion. I can find no sufficient warrant for any such doctrine as there expressed in the action of the government during the late war, or in the previous decisions of this court.

tempted to make a defense, he was informed by the judge that he need not read any law to the court, that the judge *had been ordered [*300 to grant a new trial, and that "the case would be decided under orders." A judgment for the amount claimed payable in currency was accordingly rendered in favor of the Union Bank, and the same was paid under protest. This was on the 24th of July, 1862.

It was to recover this sum that the present action was brought in a State District Court of Louisiana. That court declined to pass upon the competency of the Provost Court to render the judgment in question, but held that the Mechanics' and Traders' Bank was indebted to the Union Bank in the amount for which that judg ment was rendered, and that the same could not be recovered back in the present action; and further, that the 149th article of the Constitution of the State, of 1868, which declared that all judgments, with certain exceptions, not material in the present case, rendered in good faith and in accordance with existing laws in the State, between the 26th of January, 1861, and the adoption of the Constitution, should be valid, secured for the judgment in question, to use the language of the court, "the validity which probably it did not previously possess."

On appeal the Supreme Court of the State went further, and held that the commanding general had the right to establish the Provost Court and invest it with jurisdiction to decide all civil cases, including the one complained of; that its establishment was the exercise of the war power of the United States, presumably with the consent and authorization of the President, and that the judgment was validated by the 149th article of the State Constitution.

jurisdiction in civil cases; and that it was exempted under the Constitution from any liability imposed by a judgment rendered in the exercise of any such jurisdiction.

The case, as disclosed by the record, is briefly this: on the 2d of May, 1862, General Butler, commanding the forces of the United States The plaintiff combats these positions, and then occupying the City of New Orleans, by contends that the commanding general had no general order appointed Major Bell, aid de-authority to invest that military tribunal with camp of the division staff, provost judge of the city. Soon after this, and previous to the 13th of May, the Union Bank of Louisiana loaned the Mechanics' and Traders Bank of New Orleans $130,000 in Confederate notes. On the The Constitution secures to every one immu26th of the month the borrowing Bank tendered nity from liability and consequent deprivation payment of this amount in notes of the same of property from the unwarrantable exercise of kind, but the tender was refused, the lending jurisdiction by tribunals established under the Bank claiming payment in either the notes of authority of the United States, whether by Conthe borrowing Bank or in United States cur- gress *acting under the judiciary article [*301 rency. It appears that the commanding general of that instrument, or by the executive or milihad, by proclamation, issued on the 16th, pro-tary officers appointed by him, acting under the hibited the circulation of Confederate notes war powers of the government. And the right after the 27th of the month. This prohibition to inquire in this court whether any such unnecessarily affected the value of the notes. A dispute thereupon arose between the two banks as to the character of the currency in which the loan was to be paid, it being contended on the one side that Confederate notes were to be received in payment, and on the other that the money should be refunded in notes as current at the time as the Confederate notes were when they were loaned. The lending Bank thereupon brought suit for the $130,000 before the Provost Court.

That court dismissed the suit, holding that the claim was payable in Confederate notes. This was early in July, 1862. Some days afterwards the commanding general directed the provost judge to set this judgment aside, and to try the case again. Accordingly, when counsel for the Mechanics' and Traders' Bank ap. peared in the action after this order and at

warranted jurisdiction has been exercised is not, in my judgment, dependent upon the determination of a State Court as to the validity of the asserted jurisdiction. Trebilcock v. Wilson, 12 Wall., 692-694, 20 L. ed. 461.

Had this court, as already stated, confined itself to an affirmation of the judgment of the State Court on the ground that the plaintiff Bank owed the money borrowed, and that it could not recover it back in this action, although paid under the coercion of the decree of the Provost Court, I should have acquiesced. But to uphold the civil jurisdiction of that military tribunal upon the presumed assent to its investment with such jurisdiction by the President of the United States, when, as I think, the President refused to permit the exercise of any such jurisdiction during the war, appears to me to be uncalled for and erroneous.

Besides, the assent of the Executive can only be presumed in support of such acts of a subordinate officer as legitimately fall within the sphere of that officer's duties, and with the execution of which he is usually charged. Acts relating to the movement of troops and the furnishing of supplies to them, directed by the Secretary of War, may well be presumed to have been authorized by the President, because the execution of such measures falls within the sphere of the War Department. But no presumption would arise that they were thus authorized if the directions proceeded from the Postmaster-General or the New York Collector of Customs, because to neither of those officers are such duties usually intrusted.

Provost courts are military courts having a proved by the Secretary of War, and through well known jurisdiction, which is limited ex-him by the President, how can it be said that clusively to minor offenses, tending to disorder the Provost Court in New Orleans was preand breaches of the peace, by soldiers and citi- sumably authorized by the President to exerzens within the lines of an army, and occupy cise civil jurisdiction? From inquiries which with reference to such offenses a similar posi- I have made since this case has been pending, tion with that of police courts in our cities. I think I am justified in stating that no case The power and jurisdiction of these courts has arisen in which the exercise of civil juriswere the subject of frequent consideration dur-diction by one of these tribunals has ever been, ing the late war by the Judge Advocate Gener- even impliedly, sanctioned by the government. al of the Army, and by him were brought to the Whenever any attempt by them to exercise such attention of the Secretary of War and the Presi-jurisdiction has been brought to the attention dent. His opinions upon these subjects, when of the Executive Department, it has been uniapproved by the Department of War, were formly and promptly condemned. adopted as directions of the executive head of the government for the guidance of the officers of the Army. And it is impossible to read the opinions without perceiving in almost every line that the jurisdiction of the tribunals was limited to offenses of a petty character, and that the government intended that such jurisdiction should not, in any case, be enlarged. 302*] By *them it was declared that a general commanding a department, in which the ordinary criminal courts were suspended, was authorized, under circumstances requiring the prompt administration of justice, to appoint a provost judge for the trial of minor offenses, but that the graver violations of the law should be referred to military commissions; that the Provost Court was a tribunal whose jurisdiction was derived from the customs of war, and was unknown to our legislation; that it had no jurisdiction of offenses of soldiers triable before a court-martial or military commission; and that the judgment of the Provost Court at New Orleans, directing the imprisonment of men at Ship Island and the Dry Tortugas for desertion, marauding, mutiny, robbery and larceny, was without sanction of law and wholly void. "The jurisdiction of a Provost Court," said one of these opinions, "should be confined to cases of police merely, to wit: such cases as are summarily disposed of daily by the police courts in our large cities, as, for instance, cases of drunkenness, disorderly conduct, assault and battery, and of violation of such civil ordinances or military regulations as may be in force for the government of the locality. The provost judge supplies the place of the local police magistrate in promptly acting upon the class of cases described, without, at the same time, being necessitated (as a formal military commission would be) to preserve a detailed record of the testimony and proceedings in each case."

In another case, where an order of a commander of a department authorized a provost court to settle questions of title to personal property, it was declared that that was a subject of which no military court could properly take cognizance, and the department commander was advised that the jurisdiction of such tribunals as provost courts, in time of war, could only be extended to matters of police. See record of opinions in the office of the Judge Advocate General, Vol. II., 14; Vol. VI., 635, 639; Vol. VIII., 638; Vol. XII., 386; Vol. XIII., 392; Vol. XV., 519. An excellent digest of these opinions was prepared by Major W. Winthrop, of the U. S. Army, in 1868, and published by authority of the Secretary of War. 303*] *In the face of these promulgations from the department of military justice, ap

Now, it is no part of the duty of a military commander, whether putting down an insurrection against the government or engaged in making foreign conquest, to settle the pecuniary obligations of citizens to each other, or to provide a court for their determination. His whole duty is to subdue, by force, the insurrection in the one case and opposition to the extension of the dominion of his government in the other; and when this is accomplished, to preserve order in the community until his superior authorities direct what further proceedings shall be taken. Until such directions are given the military commander cannot lawfully go beyond his simple military duties.

*So, when a civil government was es- [*304 tablished in New Mexico, by order of General Kearney, after that officer had conquered that province by the forces under his command, he acted pursuant to special instructions from the President, through the head of the War Department. He carried the instructions with him, prepared in advance, so confident was the President that certain conquest would attend the march of our troops.

"Should you conquer and take possession of New Mexico and Upper California, or considerable places in either," said these instructions, issued on the 3d of June, 1846, "you will establish temporary civil governments therein, abolishing all arbitrary restrictions that may exist, so far as it may be done with safety. In performing this duty it would be wise and prudent to continue in their employment all such executive officers as are known to be friendly to the United States, and will take the oath of allegiance to them." Exec. Doc., 2d sess. of 29th Cong., vol. 3, 1846 and 7, No. 19.

The majority of the court are, therefore, mistaken in their statement that there was no express order for the establishment of courts and a judicial system by General Kearney in New Mexico, emanating from the President or Commander-in-Chief. The authority for the

« ForrigeFortsett »