1. The circuit court of the United States has no jurisdiction
under the Act of March 12, 1863, commonly known as the Abandoned
and Captured Property Act, where both parties are citizens of the
same state.
2. Although when a court has no jurisdiction, it is in general
irregular to make any order except to dismiss the suit, that rule
does not apply to the action of the court in setting aside such
orders as had been made improperly before the want of jurisdiction
was discovered, and restoring things to the state in which they
were before the improper orders were made.
The Act of March 12, 1863, [
Footnote 1] known as the Abandoned or Captured Property
Act, directed that property abandoned or captured within the region
lately in insurrection should be turned over to agents of the
federal Treasury, and by them sold at auction, and the proceeds
paid into the Treasury of the United States, &c. The act goes
on to say:
"Any person claiming to have been the owner of any such
abandoned or captured property may prefer his claim to the proceeds
thereof
in the Court of Claims, and on proof to the
satisfaction of said court (1) of his ownership of said property,
(2) of his right to the proceeds thereof, and (3) that be has never
given any aid or comfort to the present rebellion, receive the
residue of such proceeds."
"No special jurisdiction in the matter was given by this statute
to the circuit courts, which, if they had jurisdiction at all after
the above-quoted provision from the statute, had it only under the
Judiciary Act of 1789, which gives them (§ 11) jurisdiction
where 'the suit is between a citizen of the state where the suit is
brought and a citizen of another state.'"
With these statutes in force, the New Orleans Mail Company, a
corporation of Louisiana, filed a bill in the nature of
Page 79 U. S. 131
a bill in equity in the court below against B. F. Flanders, a
treasury agent, and one Fernandez, an auctioneer,
both
defendants, as appeared on the face of the pleadings, being
citizens of Louisiana, setting forth that Flanders, pretending
to proceed under the said Captured and Abandoned Property Act, had
seized two steamboats, the one named
Laurel Hill, the
other
Iberville, and that Fernandez, as auctioneer, was
now about to sell them, and praying an injunction against the sale;
praying also a writ of sequestration to the marshal, commanding him
to keep the boats until the further order of the court. A
preliminary injunction and a writ of sequestration were granted
accordingly.
The defendant, Flanders, filed an "answer and plea to the
jurisdiction" setting up that the steamers were
captured
property; that as such they had been delivered by the military
authorities to him as special agent of the Treasury, under the act
of Congress; and that he held the boats, and had advertised their
sale, in his official capacity. He denied that the circuit court
had any jurisdiction of the case made in the petition, on the
ground that, by the Act of March 12, 1863, the Captured and
Abandoned Property Act, the entire jurisdiction of that case was
vested in the Court of Claims. He therefore prayed that the
petition be dismissed.
The court entered a judgment thus:
"For reasons
orally assigned, it is ordered that the
injunction herein sued out be made perpetual so far as the steamer
Iberville is concerned, and that said steamer he restored
to the plaintiffs."
"But as retards the steamer
Laurel Hill, considering that
the court is without jurisdiction, it is further ordered that
the injunction and sequestration be set aside and dismissed with
costs, and that said steamer be turned over to B. F. Flanders,
agent of the Treasury Department, as captured property."
As this judgment was rendered "for reasons orally assigned," the
grounds of this discrimination between the cases of the two vessels
did not appear, nor the ground on which the court supposed it had
any jurisdiction whatever
Page 79 U. S. 132
of the suit against the
Iberville more than against the
other.
From the judgment in respect to the
Laurel Hill the
mail company took this appeal. Of course, as the other vessel was
restored to them by the judgment of the court, they had no ground
of complaint against the decree in respect to her, and, the other
side not appealing, there could be no question as to the judgment
given in respect to that vessel.
The case was submitted, Mr. Evarts declining to press the case
for the appellant as being a plain one against him.
MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the Court.
Authority was conferred upon the Secretary of the Treasury by
the Act of the twelfth of March, 1863, to appoint special agents to
receive and collect abandoned or captured property in any state or
territory designated as in insurrection by the proclamation of the
President issued on the first day of July in the preceding year.
Such property, so received or collected, may be appropriated to
public use on due appraisement and certificate thereof, or may be
forwarded for sale within the loyal states as the public interest
may require, and the further provision is that all sales of the
property shall be at auction to the highest bidder and that the
proceeds thereof shall be paid into the Treasury. [
Footnote 2]
Officers or privates in the army and officers, sailors, or
marines in the navy are required by the sixth section of the act to
turn over to an agent appointed under that act all property taken
or received from persons in such insurrectionary districts or which
they have under their control, and the same section also provides
that the agent receiving such property shall give a receipt for the
same to the person from whom it was received. [
Footnote 3]
Two steamboats, to-wit the
Laurel Hill and the
Iberville, were captured by our military and naval forces
at New Orleans
Page 79 U. S. 133
in the month of May, 1862, shortly after our military occupation
of the city became complete. Carefully examined, the proofs show
that the
Laurel Hill was captured on the eighth of May of
that year in Bayou Jacquot, a small bayou connected with Bayou
Plaquemines, situated in the Parish of Iberville, on the right bank
of the River Mississippi, one hundred miles above the City of New
Orleans and at that time within the military lines of the
Confederate army. Our military occupation of the city became
complete on the sixth of May of that year, and the proofs show the
Iberville was captured on the twenty-second of the same
month while lying at Greenville, which is situated on the left bank
of the river, four and a half miles above the city but below Camp
Parapet, and was at that time within our military lines.
Captured under the circumstances explained, the two steamboats
remained in the custody or subject to the control of our military
authorities until the twenty-first clay of December, 1865, when the
proper officer in charge of the same turned the captured steamers
over to the respondent, B. F. Flanders, as the agent of the
Treasury Department appointed under the first section of the
before-mentioned act of Congress. Pursuant to authority conferred
by the second section of the act, the respondent, Flanders,
employed the other respondent as an auctioneer to sell the
steamboats, and the latter, by virtue of his employment, advertised
the same for sale at public auction.
Based on these facts, the complainants and appellants, on the
ninth of January, 1866, filed their bill of complaint in the
circuit court of the United States and alleged that they were the
lawful owners of the respective steamboats; that the respondents
had no right, interest, or claim in the same, and that a sale of
the same as proposed would be a violation of their rights as such
owners. They brought the suit to prevent the sale of the steamboats
as proposed in the advertisement, and they accordingly prayed for
in injunction to that effect, and they also prayed for a writ of
sequestration, to be directed to the marshal, commanding him to
take the steamboats into his possession and to safely keep the
same
Page 79 U. S. 134
until the further order of the court.
Accompanying the bill of complainant was an affidavit of merits,
and the record shows that both writs were granted as prayed, the
complainants giving bond to the respondents to pay all such damages
as should be adjudged against them if the processes were wrongly
obtained.
Service having been made, the respondent, Flanders, appeared and
filed an answer. He alleged that the steamers were captured by our
military and naval forces, as before explained, and that he held
the same as special agent of the Treasury Department. Besides
pleading to the merits as aforesaid, he denied the jurisdiction of
the court, and also prayed that the injunction might be dissolved
and that the bill of complaint might be dismissed. Testimony was
taken, but further reference to it is unnecessary, as all the facts
proved which are material in this investigation have already been
stated. None of the other proceedings in the suit is of any
importance in the present state of the controversy except the final
decree, which was to the effect as follows:
(1) That the injunction in respect to the steamer
Iberville be made perpetual, and that the steamer be
restored to the complainants.
(2) That the orders granting the writs of injunction and
sequestration in respect to the steamer
Laurel Hill be set
aside, with costs, and that the steamer be restored to the
respondent, Flanders, as the special agent of the Treasury
Department.
Probably the decision in the matter of the steamer
Iberville was placed upon the ground that the steamer was
captured within our military lines subsequent to the publication of
the proclamation issued by the commanding general at the
headquarters of the army announcing that "all the rights of
property of whatever kind will be held inviolate, subject only to
the laws of the United States." [
Footnote 4]
Much difficulty, to say the least, would have arisen in
sustaining that part of the decree if the respondents had
appealed
Page 79 U. S. 135
to this Court, as the presiding justice held that the circuit
court had no jurisdiction of the case, but inasmuch as that part of
the decree was in favor of the appellants and the respondents did
not appeal, the error, if it be one, cannot be corrected.
Correction of the error is not sought by the appellants, and it is
well settled law that no one but an appellant can he heard in an
appellate court for the reversal of a decree rendered in the
subordinate court. [
Footnote 5]
Appellees may be heard in support of the decree, but not for
reversal, as it is the privilege of both parties to appeal if they
see fit and comply with the conditions prescribed by law. [
Footnote 6]
Captured as the steamer
Laurel Hill was within the
military lines of the Confederate army, the proclamation of our
commanding general before referred to afforded no support to that
part of the claim of the complainants, but the presiding justice
being of the opinion that the circuit court had no jurisdiction of
the case, did not examine the merits of the controversy. Both
parties, as appears on the face of the pleadings, are citizens of
the same state, and upon that ground this Court is of the opinion
that the bill of complaint was properly dismissed for want of
jurisdiction. [
Footnote 7]
Where the circuit court is without jurisdiction, it is in
general irregular to make any order in the cause except to dismiss
the suit, but that rule does not apply to the action of the court
in setting aside such orders as had been improperly made before the
want of jurisdiction was discovered. Prior to that, the court, on
motion of the complainants, had granted an injunction and issued a
writ of sequestration, on which latter writ the marshal had taken
possession of the steamer and held it subject to the order of the
court. Evidently those writs were improvidently issued, and the
Page 79 U. S. 136
court, having come to that conclusion, set them aside and
ordered the steamer restored to the custody in which it was when
the writ of sequestration was served.
Decree affirmed.
[
Footnote 1]
12 Stat. at Large 820.
[
Footnote 2]
12 Stat. at Large 820.
[
Footnote 3]
Ib., 821.
[
Footnote 4]
<|2 Wall. 276|>The Venice, 2 Wall. 276;
<|2 Wall. 150|>The Circassian, 2 Wall. 150.
[
Footnote 5]
<|3 Dall. 198|>The Mary Ford, 3 Dallas 198.
[
Footnote 6]
<|5 Wall. 412|>The William Bagaley, 5 Wall. 412;
<|2 Wall. 196|>Chittenden v. Brewster, 2 Wall. 196;
<|9 Pet. 484|>Harrison v. Nixon, 9 Pet. 484;
<|8 Pet. 4|>Stratton v. Jarvis, 8 Pet. 4;
<|13 How. 150|>Buckingham v. McLean, 13 How. 150;
<|3 Pet. 318|>Canter v. Am. Ins. Co., 3 Pet.
318.
[
Footnote 7]
1 Stat. at Large 78;
<|6 Wheat. 450|>Sullivan v.
Fulton Steamboat Co., 6 Wheat. 450;
<|16 How.
104|>Piquignot v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 16 How. 104;
<|9 Wall. 560|>Hornthall v. Collector, 9 Wall.
560.
