Turner v. . the N.C. R. R. Co.

Read®, J. The Court in which the plaintiff seeks redress for an alleged injury, is a Court of the Government of one of the States of the United States. The plaintiff was engaged in a rebellion against the Government of the United States, .and having for a time absented himself from the service of the Rebellion, he contracted with the defendant to convey him to the field.of active operations, that he might report for such service again; and he complains that the defendant was guilty of negligence in transporting him, and that thereby he was his claim, and help him to redress, If the Rebellion had been successful, and a government had been founded upon that success, it would doubtless have been legitimate for the courts of such government to adjust the rights of those who had been engaged as its agents in establishing the government. But will the Courts of the gov-•erifment' which was attempted to be destroyed, interfere to redress one of the insurgents who was disabled in the very act of hostility to the government whose aid he now seeks ? If the defendant, who is alleged to have committed the injury, was a friend of the United States, it would seem to be an ungenerous discrimination to subject him to damages for an act of which his government had the benefit; and if the defendant was a co-rebel with the plaintiff, and they were~in pari ddicto, the government would consult its dignity, and not interfere in their dispute. But this must be understood to be restricted to acts rebellious, or intimately connected with the Rebellion, and in aid oí it; for, very clearly, the present Courts will take cognizance of all matters of a civil nature between rebels, not intimately connected with and in aid of the rebellion. In the view of the Courts of the present Government, the service in. *526 which the plaintiff was engaged was illegal. The act of going: to the field of operations was illegal, and the contract of the defendant to aid him by carrying him to the field, was an illegal contract, and upon the supposition that both parties were rebels, — the most favorable one for the plaintiff — there can be no recovery upon it. Martin v. McMillan, ante 468. Note. — As some misapprehension exists as to the extent of the principle administered by the presiding Judge upon the trial of the case, below, the Reporter adds that during the same term of Alamance Court, in the case of Ireland v. The N. C. R. JR. Company, (being a suit for damages occasioned by the same negligence that injured the plaintiff in the case above,) the plaintiff, who was also shown to be an officer of the Confederate States army, under the instruction of his Honor recovered a verdict for #2,000, the defendant having failed to show that he was then going in order to report to General Johnston.', also, that at the same term, in the case of Ciarle, Adm’r., &e., v. The Raleigh & Gaston R. R. Company; it was shown that the intestate was an officer of the Confederate States army at home on furlough, and that he was killed by the negligence of officials of the defendant, whilst returning home from a visit to friends. Under the instructions of his Honor, the plaintiff recovered a verdict for #3,000. All these cases were conducted by the same counsel. The objection was properly taken on the plea of the general issue. There is no error. Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.