FLANDERS
v.
TWEED
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Tweed sued Flanders in federal court to recover 123 bales of cotton, but Flanders, a Treasury Department deputy, claimed the cotton was government property captured during the war and reserved for the United States under a contract with Tweed that allocated three-fourths of the cotton to Tweed and one-fourth to the government. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's judgment for Tweed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the case fell within the principles established in a related case between the same parties involving damages for detention of the same cotton.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Nelson delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana.
The suit was brought by Tweed in the court below against Flanders to recover one hundred and twenty-three bales of cotton.
The answer of the defendant states that he was a deputy general agent of the Treasury Department of the United States; denies that the cotton belonged to the plaintiff, but was the property of the United States; that the cotton was shipped to him as such at New Orleans, with other lots, by a treasury agent at Shreveport, under a contract with the plaintiff and the Treasury Department, in relation to cotton known as Confederate States cotton, captured in war and turned over to the Treasury Department by officers of the army; that by virtue of this contract, and certain services rendered by the plaintiff, three-fourths of the number of bales received by the defendant were to be turned over to him, and one-fourth reserved to the United States; that the one hundred and twenty-three bales in suit are the one-fourth thus reserved; .and that the three hundred and seventy-two bales claimed by the. plaintiff in liis suit, No. 3872 of the docket of the court, are the three-fourths coming to the plaintiff under the contract. The defendant also claims that the one hundred and twenty-three bales in question are captured or abandoned property.
Mr. Attorney General and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Field for plaintiff in error. Mr. J. Hubley Ashton, Mr. T. D. Lincoln and Mr. E. O. Billings for defendant in error. A large amount of evidence was taken in the cause on both sides upon the issues thus raised. The cotton had been sequestered and delivered to the plaintiff on his giving a bond as security for the same. The court rendered a judgment for the plaintiff. It was rendered on the 29th. January, 1868. A statement of facts is found in the record, at p. 83, by the judge, filed May 13,1868, some three months and a half after the rendition of the judgment.
This ease, therefore, falls within the views expressed in the suit between these parties involving the question of damages for the detention of these one hundred and twenty-three bales of cotton, together with the three hundred and seventy-two bales disposed of in a previous suit in the court below against the defendant, referred to in his answer, the opinion in which has just been delivered. 9 Wall. 425.
For the reasons given in that case the judgment must be
Reversed for a mistrial, and the cause remanded for a new trial.