Summary

Samuel Blatchford Lamar v. McCulloch — Opinion of the Court

The demurrer was sustained by the circuit court, which held in its decision that, as the act of March 12, 1863, contemplated that the property of loyal citizens might and would be taken under it, and as the only remedy of a loyal citizen of a loyal state in respect to property owned by him, seized by a treasury agent in an insurrectionary district as aba doned property, was by an application to the court of claims, pardon and amnesty could not place the disloyal citizen in any better position than that occupied by the loyal citizen.
Source: Wikisource

Samuel Blatchford Lamar v. McCulloch — Opinion of the Court

Alexander, and services you have performed, and will still be able to perform for the department in connection with the collection of this property, I desire that you return to your late field of operations, and do all in your power to secure to the government the cotton named by you, and to transport the same to a proper place of shipment at the earliest practicable day; and I will agree to make such an allowance as compensation for your services as will be liberal and just, in view of the character of your services, and the risk and expenses incurred by you in performing them.
Source: Wikisource

Samuel Blatchford Lamar v. McCulloch — Opinion of the Court

The objection taken to it is, that it does not aver that the property, when taken possession of by the treasury agent, was captured or abandoned property, nor in any other manner show that it was rightfully seized. * * * The question is, whether congress intended to make the remedy given by this act exclusive of all others, or to permit the treasury agents to be sued for the possession or proceeds of such property wherever the party aggrieved might find a court of general jurisdiction.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature