Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/95/434/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/95/434/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Beard v. Burts, 95 U.S. 434 (1877)
Beard v. Burts
95 U.S. 434
Syllabus
1. The Acts of Congress respectively approved March 3, 1863, 12 Stat. 756, and May 11, 1866, 14 id. 461, extend protection to all persons for acts they committed in subordination to the military authorities engaged in conducting the war and confer upon them the same exemption from liability to suit which belonged to the President, the Secretary of War, and the department commanders.
2. Where a bill was filed in 1865 for an injunction against cutting wood on the complainant's land in Tennessee and for an account of what had been already cut, and the defendant, answering, set up that he had cut the wood "as an authorized agent of the government of the United States, and for military purposes, under the direction and authority of the military authorities," and, in further answering, pleaded that he had a right to do so, as appeared by an order or authority from one D. V. Brown, wood agent of the United States military railroads authorizing him to cut wood on said land, as follows:
"KNOXVILLE, TENN., May 9, 1865"
"James S. Beard is hereby authorized to cut wood for the U.S.M.R. on the lands of Joseph Burts, John Lyle, Dillard Love, by order of the superintendent."
"D. V. Brown, Wood Agent"
-- and the court, after finding that the defendant's answer was sustained by the proofs, entered a decree dismissing the bill,
Held:
1. That the facts so found were conclusive upon a bill of review alleging errors apparent on the face of the decree.
2. That it cannot be properly assumed that the paper signed D. V. Brown was all the evidence from which the court concluded that the defendant acted under the warrant of the military authorities of the government.
3. That as the wood was received by them and used for the military railroads before operations for the suppression of the rebellion had ceased, the paper, although in form permissive only, was a sufficient justification and defense.
