Wilson v. . Franklin and Burleson

63 N.C. 259

Opinion

RodmaN, J.

The defendant EranMin was a Lieutenant,., and the defendant Burleson was a private in the United States Army. On the 17th of May 1865, by command of one-Jenkins, who was a Captain in the United States Army, they took from the possession of the plaintiff two horses. The-case states, that at the time mentioned, there were no armed troops in Western North Carolina, in hostility to the United States and we know as a matter of public history, that there were none in any part of the State. The rebellion, so far as. North Carolina was concerned had been entirely suppressed. It. ' does not appear that in seizing the horses, Captain Jenkins-acted under the orders of the Government of the United States, or of any superior officer. No question arises as to» what might have been the rights of the armies of the United States during the existence of actual hostilities. If it should, be conceded that the laws of North Carolina for the protection of private rights, were suspended during the war, as regarded the government and the military authorities of the-United States, upon the suppression of the rebellion those-laws resumed their original vigor, at least as against the unauthorized acts of the soldiery. There is no error in the judgment, and it is affirmed.

Pee Cüeiam. Judgment affirmed.