In February, 1862, while the whole State of Louisiana, including
the City of New Orleans, was under the civil and military control
of the rebels of the late rebellion, it mercantile firm in New
Orleans sent their agent into certain interior parishes of the
state to collect money clue to the firm and to make purchases of
cotton. After the agent had got into the interior parishes, but
before he bad bought any cotton, the City of New Orleans, where his
principals were, was captured (April 27, 1862) by the forces of the
United States, and remained from that time under the control of the
government, the interior parishes, however, still remaining in the
control of the rebels. Subsequently to this the agent made
purchases of cotton from persons in these interior parishes, still,
as just said, under the control of the rebels.
Held that
the firm was guilty of trading with the enemy, and that the
property was rightly taken by the federal government.
"On the 20th of February, 1862, while the whole State of
Louisiana,
including the City of New Orleans, was in the
possession and under the control of the rebels, Lapene & Ferre,
a mercantile firm in the said city, sent their traveling clerk from
the said City of New Orleans into certain parishes in the interior
of the state, to collect moneys due to the firm there, and gave him
authority to purchase sugar and cotton for the firm."
"In March or April, 1862, they requested one Avegno, who was
then going from New Orleans to the said parishes, to remit to their
said clerk the sum of $5,000, and to assist the said clerk in the
business of buying sugar and cotton. Avegno agreed to do this, and,
in pursuance of his agreement, did deliver the said sum to the said
clerk, in the said interior parishes, then in the possession and
under the control of the rebels."
"While the said clerk and the said Avegno were in the said
parishes, on the 27th day of April, 1862, the City of New Orleans
was captured by the United States forces, and thenceforth through
the whole term of the rebellion was held by those forces. "
Page 84 U. S. 602
"
After the said capture, the said clerk with the said
sum of $5,000 and other moneys collected by him in the said
parishes, which parishes were, when the purchases were made, in the
possession and under the control of the rebels, bought in different
lots a quantity of cotton, and left it at the places where it was
purchased."
"He returned from those parishes to New Orleans on the 14th of
July, 1862. There was no evidence of any communication having been
had between him and Lapene & Ferre, in relation to the said
purchases of cotton, between the capture of New Orleans and his own
return to that city, except the aforesaid delivery to him by Avegno
of the said $5,000."
"The cotton so purchased remained at the points at which it was
purchased until April and May, 1863, when it was captured by
military forces of the United States and shipped to and received by
the federal authorities at New Orleans."
Hereupon Lapene & Ferre filed a petition in the Court of
Claims, claiming the cotton or the proceeds of it as their
property, and the Court of Claims decreed that it belonged to them.
From this decree the United States took the present appeal.
MR. JUSTICE HUNT delivered the opinion of the Court.
All commercial contracts with the subjects or in the territory
of the enemy, whether made directly by one in person, or indirectly
through an agent, who is neutral, are illegal and void. This
principle is now too well settled to justify
Page 84 U. S. 603
discussion. [
Footnote 1] No
property passes and no rights are acquired under such
contracts.
In March, 1862, the whole of the State of Louisiana was in the
limitary possession of the Confederate forces. Intercourse between
the inhabitants of the different portions thereof was legal, and
contracts made between them were legal.
On the 27th of April, in the same year, the City of New Orleans
was captured by the military forces of the United States, and
thereafter remained under their control. From that time commercial
intercourse between the inhabitants of that city and the
inhabitants of other portions of the State of Louisiana which
remained under the Confederate rule became illegal. Ordinarily the
line of nonintercourse is the boundary line between the territories
of contending nations. The recent war in the United States was a
civil war, in which portions of the same nation were engaged in
hostile strife with each other. The State of Louisiana, although
one of the United States, was under the control of the Confederate
government and their armies, and was an enemy's country. While the
City of New Orleans was under such control, it was a portion of an
enemy's country. When that city was captured by the forces of the
United States, the line of nonintercourse was changed, and traffic
before legal became illegal. This line was that of military
occupation or control by the forces of the different governments,
and not that of state lines. This principle was expressly decided
in
Montgomery v. United States. [
Footnote 2] There the cotton sold was in the parish of
La Fourche, a parish of the State of Louisiana, and belonged to
Johnson an enemy domiciled in an enemy's country, to-wit, the
parish of La Fourche, in the same state. The sale was made by an
agent of Johnson in the City of New Orleans, to Montgomery, a
British subject. This Court held the sale to be void and that no
title passed to Johnson.
Like that in Montgomery's case, the agency here was created
Page 84 U. S. 604
while it was legal to create an agency. In each case also
existed the important fact that the transaction of purchase took
place after the parties became residents of hostile portions of the
same state. Burridge was appointed the agent of Johnson in
Montgomery's case, as was the agreement in this case made with
Avegno, and the money advanced by him, while the parties were all
residents of and under the control of the Confederate government.
But the cotton was sold by Burridge, as here the cotton was
purchased by the clerk after this relation had ceased. In each
instance, the purchase of the cotton was a transaction with an
alien enemy.
The agency to purchase cotton was terminated by the hostile
position of the parties. The agency to receive payment of debts due
to Lapene & Co. may well have continued. But Avegno was no
debtor to that firm. He advanced money to their agent when it was
legal to do so. With this money, and other moneys belonging to
them, while in an enemy's country, the agent of the plaintiffs
bought the cotton in question. This purchase gave effectual aid to
the enemy by furnishing to them the sinews of war. It was forbidden
by the soundest principles of public law. The purchaser obtained no
title to the cotton, and has no claim against the government for
its capture.
Judgment reversed.
Dissenting, MR. JUSTICE MILLER and MR. JUSTICE FIELD.
[
Footnote 1]
Woolsey's International Law ยง 117;
Montgomery
v. United States, 15 Wall. 395.
[
Footnote 2]
Supra.
