Buchanan v. Patterson

United States Supreme Court

190 U.S. 353

Buchanan  v.  Patterson

 Argued: April 29, 30, 1903. --- Decided: June 1, 1903

The plaintiff in error, Esther S. Buchanan, filed her bill in circuit court No. 2, of Baltimore city, on August 17, 1899, against the parties defendant, for the purpose of obtaining the instructions of that court as to whom and in what proportions she should pay and distribute certain sums of money received by her from the United States under what is termed the French spoliations acts of Congress. Answers were made by the various parties, and a decree was subsequently entered giving directions for the distribution of the funds. An appeal from that decree was taken by some of the defendants to the court of appeals, and that court reversed a portion of the decree (as to the proper distribution of the money), and remanded the case for further proceedings. 92 Md. 334, 48 Atl. 158. The trial court then entered a decree in accordance with the directions of the court of appeals, and thereupon the original plaintiff, Esther S. Buchanan, appealed to the court of appeals, and that court then affirmed the decree of the court below. 94 Md. 534, 51 Atl. 169. Plaintiffs in error bring the case here by writ of error.

The first act of Congress relating to the French spoliations was passed January 20, 1885. 23 Stat. at L. 283, chap. 25 (U.S.C.omp. Stat. 1901, p. 750).

Miss Buchanan was, in May, 1885, duly appointed administratrix upon the estate of her father, William B. Buchanan, deceased. She then, through her counsel and in common with other claimants for losses sustained by the seizures of the two vessels Patapsco and Jane, came into the court of claims and proved the facts upon which the rights of the several claimants were based as against the United States. In presenting the claims, she did in truth represent, with their consent, all the parties interested therein, including those now claiming against her.

The court reported (May 18, 1887) that the seizures of the two vessels complained of were illegal, and that the claimants were entitled to the following sums from the United States. A list was then given of those entitled to an appropriation on account of the ship Patapsco, in which was included the name of Esther S. Buchanan, as follows:

'Esther S. Buchanan, administratrix of the estate of William Buchanan, who was the surviving partner of the firm of S. Smith & Buchanan, deceased, to the sum of $25,056.'

In relation to the ship Jane, in the list of those entitled to an appropriation was the following:

'Esther S. Buchanan, administratrix, representing Smith & Buchanan, $11,660.21.'

After this report had been made, and on March 23, 1891, Esther S. Buchanan was duly appointed administratrix de bonis non with the will annexed of the personal estate of James A. Buchanan, her grandfather.

No action of Congress in relation to these claims was had until 1899, when an act was passed, approved March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. at L. 1161, chap. 426). The act provided for the payment of claims allowed under the Bowman and Tucker acts by the court of claims, and on page 1191 it provided as follows:

'French Spoliation Claims.

'To pay the findings of the court of claims on the following claims for indemnity for spoliations by the French prior to July thirtieth, eighteen hundred and one, under the act entitled 'An Act to Provide for the Ascertainment of Claims of American Citizens for Spoliations Committed by the French Prior to the Thirty-first Day of July, Eighteen Hundred and One:' Provided, That in all cases where the original sufferers were adjudicated bankrupts the awards shall be made on behalf of the next of kin instead of to assignees in bankruptcy, and the awards in the cases of individual claimants shall not be paid until the court of claims shall certify to the Secretary of the Treasury that the personal representatives on whose behalf the award is made represent the next of kin, and the courts which granted the administrations, respectively, shall have certified that the legal representatives have given adequate security for the legal disbursements of the awards, namely.'

Then follow appropriations to a number of claimants in satisfaction of the losses sustained by the illegal seizures of vessels and cargoes.

Among them, on page 1194, is included the following:

'On the ship Jane, John Wallace, master, namely:

'Esther S. Buchanan, administratrix, representing Smith & Buchanan, $11,660.21.'

On page 1195 is the following:

'On the ship Patapsco, William Hill, master, namely: . . . [names of various claimants for other interests in same ship].

'Esther S. Buchanan, administratrix of the estate of William B. Buchanan, who was the surviving partner of the firm of S. Smith & Buchanan, deceased, $25,056, the value of the cargo shipped by said firm.'

Pursuant to the proviso in the act of 1899, the court of claims, upon the application of the attorney of record for Esther S. Buchanan, administratrix, representing Smith & Buchanan, deceased, ordered, in the case of the ship Jane, a certificate to be issued to the Secretary of the Treasury, as follows:

'The court of claims hereby certifies that it appears by evidence on file in the above-entitled case that said Esther S. Buchanan, on whose behalf an appropriation or award was made by the act of March 3, 1899, entitled 'An Act for the Allowance of Certain Claims for Stores and Supplies Reported by the Court of Claims under the Provisions of the Act Approved March Third, Eighteen Hundred and Eighty-three, and Commonly Known as the Bowman Act, and for Other Purposes,' for the sum of eleven thousand six hundred and sixty dollars and twenty-one cents ($11,660.21), represents the next of kin of William B. Buchanan, the surviving member of the firm of Samuel Smith & Buchanan, deceased, the original owner of the claim upon which said award was made.

'And the court further certifies that it appears on the record of the said case that at the time when the award of this court was made the said claim was not held by assignment or owned by an insurance company.'

The same kind of a certificate was made in relation to the ship Patapsco.

These certificates were made on June 15, 1899, and were filed with the Secretary of the Treasury, and the moneys mentioned, being a total of $36,716.21, were thereafter paid to Miss Buchanan.

Having received the money from the government, the plaintiff in error then commenced this suit individually, and as administratrix of the estate of William B. Buchanan, deceased, and as administratrix de bonis non with the will annexed of James A. Buchanan, deceased, in circuit court No. 2, of Baltimore city, in which she stated the various facts under which the money had been paid her, and that she had in her hands for distribution, among the persons particularly entitled to the same, the sum of $22,629.47, after the payment of all costs, etc. She also averred that she was advised that she held funds for the benefit of and distribution among, not only the next of kin of her own decedent, the said William B. Buchanan, but also the next of kin of the other partners of said firm of S. Smith & Buchanan, to wit, Samuel Smith and James A. Buchanan, in the proportions and according to the laws of distribution which the court might hold to be proper in the cause. She also gave the names of the next of kin of William B. Buchanan, namely, herself and her brother, Wilson C. Buchanan, and then stated who were the next of kin of James A. Buchanan, deceased, living at the date of the passage of the act of Congress directing the payment of the claims, to wit, March 3, 1899, so far as they were known to her, and she stated that she had given the names of all of the next of kin of Samuel Smith and James A. Buchanan living at the time of the passage of the act of Congress, March 3, 1899, although she said there might be others unknown to her who might lay claim to participate in the distribution of the fund, and she was in doubt as to the proportion in which the beneficiaries should participate in the shares of their ancestors in the fund. She then stated:

'Twelfth. That according to the information and belief of your oratrix, the said Samuel Smith, James A. Buchanan, and William B. Buchanan were equal copartners, but a claim has been made on your oratrix by Robert Carter Smith, one of the distributees of Samuel Smith, and a party defendant herein, wherein he asserts that his ancestor, the said Samuel Smith, had a one-half interest in the property of said copartnership, and that, therefore, the next of kin of the said Samuel Smith are entitled to have for distribution among them one half of the fund now in the hands of your oratrix for distribution; but your oratrix is informed and does verily believe that distribution of said fund should be made in three equal parts among the next of kin of the three partners in said firm of S. Smith & Buchanan.'

Other facts were given in relation to the existence of parties who might possibly claim some interest in the fund, and in her complaint she finally said that, by reason of the facts above set forth, she was in doubt to whom and in what proportion she should pay and distribute the sum of money in her hands, and that she was advised, and therefore alleges, that a distribution of the same can only be had under the order of a court of equity, in a manner adequate to insure her own protection in the future. She thereupon asked that the court assume jurisdiction of the fund in her hands as administratrix, as already set forth, and that it direct and supervise the distribution of the same among the parties whom the court may find to be entitled to participate therein, according to the proportion and rule which this court may declare to govern the same.

Answers were made by some of the parties and the bill taken as confessed as against others. Upon the trial, evidence was given under objection, and the state court has found that at the time of the illegal seizures of the vessels in 1798, William B. Buchanan was about three years old, he having been born on September 9, 1795; that in 1798, the year the losses occurred, there was a firm of S. Smith & Buchanan, consisting only of S. Smith and James A. Buchanan, the father of William B. Buchanan, and they were the only original sufferers from the illegal seizures of the ships. William B. Buchanan did not become a member of the firm until about twenty years later, or until January 1, 1818, and he became the survivor of the firm formed in 1818, which was also known as S. Smith & Buchanan.

It thus appears that, although William B. Buchanan was the survivor of a firm of S. Smith & Buchanan as that firm was constituted in 1818, he was not the survivor of the firm of S. Smith & Buchanan as that firm was constituted in 1798, when these illegal seizures occurred.

The trial court held that the moneys should be divided into three portions, one of which should go to the next of kin of Samuel Smith, another to the next of kin of James A. Buchanan, and another to the next of kin of William B. Buchanan, being Esther S. and Wilson C. Buchanan.

The court of appeals, on appeal from the decree of the circuit court, held that this was an erroneous disposition of the money, and that it should be divided into two portions, one of which should go to the next of kin of Samuel Smith, and the other to the next of kin of James A. Buchanan; Samuel Smith and James A. Buchanan being the only members of the firm that sustained the losses, and being the original sufferers from the illegal seizures. The writ of error has been sued out for the purpose of reviewing this decree.

Messrs. Archibald H. Taylor, Edward P. Keech, Jr., and John Peirce Bruns for plaintiffs in error.

Messrs. Arthur W. Machen, Frank P. Clark, and Arthur W. Machen, Jr., for defendants in error.

Mr. Justice Peckham, after making the foregoing statement of facts, delivered the opinion of the court:

Notes