Statement of the case in the opinion. low must be REVERSED, AND A MANDAMUS ISSUED to the collector, directing him to receive in payment of the relator's taxes the bills offered by him. BRADLEY, J.: I dissent from the opinion of the court in this case. I agree that the legislature of South Carolina meant the same thing by the expression "notes of speciepaying banks" and the expression "notes of banks payable in specie," or an equivalent phrase. But, in my judgment, it was meant by both expressions to indicate "notes of banks actually paying specie." The other questions in the case were not raised or considered and need not be adverted to. Mr. Justice SWAYNE did not sit in this case. LASERE V. ROCHEREAU. Judicial proceedings during the war of the rebellion, within lines of the Federal army, by a private person on a mortgage, ending in a judgment and sale of the mortgaged premises, against one who had been expelled by the military authority of the United States into the so-called Confederacy, and who had no power or right to return to his home during the rebellion, held null, and a judgment which refused to vacate them reversed. Dean v. Nelson (10 Wallace, 172) affirmed. ERROR to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, in which court several cases were consolidated. They came from it here as a single case. Messrs. J. A. & D. G. Campbell, for the plaintiff in error. No opposing counsel. Mr. Justice SWAYNE stated the facts of the case, and delivered the opinion of the court. In May, 1863, the plaintiff in error was, and had been for Opinion of the court. many years, a resident of the city of New Orleans. On the 9th of that month-being "a registered enemy" of the United States a military order was issued that he should "leave that parish for the so-called Confederacy before the 15th instant." The order was obeyed. He proceeded to Mobile, and remained there until the capture of that place by the National forces in April, 1865. He thereupon returned immediately to New Orleans, and was not further molested there by the military authorities. The subjugation of the city of New Orleans by the forces of the United States became complete on the 6th of May, 1863. It remained thenceforward in their possession until the close of the insurrection. The absence of Lasere from New Orleans, like his departure, was enforced and involuntary. He intended to return, and, as soon as permitted to do so, did return and resume his residence. In the fall of 1863, after his expulsion, proceedings by executory process were instituted against him upon two mortgages for the seizure and sale of the mortgaged premises, consisting of a house and lot in New Orleans. The first order bears date on the 23d of November. On the 27th of that month the sheriff returned on the notice. of demand of payment, that, "after diligent search and inquiry," he "was informed" that Lasere had "left the city and State without leaving an agent to represent him." A curator ad hoc was thereupon appointed, but it does not appear that he took any action. "After the legal delay had expired" the sheriff proceeded to advertise and sell the premises, and conveyed them to the purchaser. Lasere, after his return from Mobile, instituted the original cases to vacate those proceedings. They terminated in the adverse judgment which is before us for review. It is contrary to the plainest principles of reason and justice that any one should be condemned as to person or property without an opportunity to be heard.* Scant time was allowed the plaintiff in error to prepare for his removal * McVeigh v. United States, 11 Wallace, 267. Syllabus. within the Confederate lines. During his absence he had no legal right to appoint an agent or to transact any other business in New Orleans.* This legal proposition has been so often and so fully discussed by this court that it is needless to go over the same ground again. If the law were otherwise, it is to be presumed that any communication between Mobile and New Orleans was impracticable. Lasere doubtless knew nothing of the proceedings against him; and, if he had had such knowledge, he was powerless to do anything to protect his rights. The point here involved was decided by this court in Dean v. Nelson.† It was there said: "The defendants in the proceedings"-meaning the original proceedings—“ the appellees here, were within the Confederate lines at the time, and it was unlawful for them to cross those lines. Two of them had been expelled the Union lines by military authority, and were not permitted to return. The other, Benjamin May, had never left the Confederate lines. A notice directed to them and published in a newspaper was a mere idle form. They could not lawfully see or obey it. As to them, the proceedings were wholly void and inoperative." The case thus condemned is substantially the one before us. JUDGMENT REVERSED, and the case remanded to the court whence it came, with directions to proceed IN CONFORMITY TO THIS OPINION. EX PARTE ATOCHA. 1. Claims under treaty stipulations are excluded from the general jurisdiction of the Court of Claims conferred by the acts of Congress of February 24th, 1855, and March 3d, 1863; and when jurisdiction over such claims is conferred by special act, the authority of that court to hear and determine them, and of this court to review its action, is limited and controlled by the provisions of that act. *Coppell v. Hall, 7 Wallace, 558. 10 Wallace, 172. Statement of the case. 2. An act of Congress passed on the 14th of February, 1865, "for the relief of Alexander J. Atocha," directed the Court of Claims to examine into his claim against the government of Mexico for losses sustained by him by reason of his expulsion from that country in 1845, and provided that if the court was of opinion that the claim was a just one against Mexico when the treaty of 1848 was ratified, and was embraced by that treaty, it should "fix and determine" its amount, and declared that the loss or damage sustained by him, thus adjudicated and determined, should be paid out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, subject only to the condition that the amount did not exceed the unapplied balance of the sum provided by the treaty. Under this act the claim of Atocha was presented to that court for examination and determination. The court gave its decision to the effect that it was of opinion that the claim was a just one against Mexico when the treaty of 1848 was ratified, and was embraced by that treaty, and "fixed and determined" the amount of the loss and damage sustained by Atocha, and declared that it would be satisfied by the United States paying to the administratrix of the estate of the claimant the balance remaining unapplied of the sum designated in the treaty: Held, that the decision of the Court of Claims was final under the special act, and that no appeal would lie from it to this court. PETITION and motion for mandamus: the case being thus: By the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, made on the 2d of February, 1848, between the United States and Mexico, the United States exonerated Mexico from all demands of their citizens, which had previously arisen, and had not been decided against that government, and engaged to satisfy them to an amount not exceeding $3,250,000. They also stipulated for the establishment of a board of commissioners to ascertain the validity and amount of the claims, and provided that its awards should be final.* 4 In execution of this stipulation Congress, on the 3d of March, 1849, passed an act creating a board of commissioners to examine the claims, and provided for the payment of its awards, or a proportional part thereof, from the amount designated in the treaty. The act required the board to terminate its business within two years from the day of its organization.t * 9 Statutes at Large, 933, Arts. XIV and XV of the Treaty. Statement of the case. To this board Alexander J. Atocha, a naturalized citizen of the United States, presented a claim against the government of Mexico for losses sustained by reason of his expulsion from that country in 1845. In the prosecution of his claim evidence was taken and laid before the board, but whether it was acted upon, and what proceedings were subsequently taken, did not appear by the record. For aught that appeared the claim might not have been prosecuted to a final determination; it might have fallen from the expiration of the board, or it might have been rejected on its merits. It was, however, immaterial, so far as the present inquiry was concerned, what had been its fate before the board. If rejected, the United States were the only party to insist upon the finality of the determination. Mexico was released from the claim, and it did not concern her what consideration the United States might choose to give to it, so long as other claimants against her were not in consequence denied payment of their demands, and there was no pretence that such was the case. On the contrary, a balance remained of the amount designated in the treaty after the satisfaction of the awards made. And on the 14th of February, 1865, Congress passed a special act for the relief of Atocha, and by it directed the Court of Claims to examine into his claim, and provided that if the court was of opinion that the claim was a just one against Mexico when the treaty of 1848 was ratified, and was embraced by that treaty, it should "fix and determine" its amount, and declared that the loss or damage sustained by him, thus adjudicated and determined, should be paid out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, subject only to the condition that the amount did not exceed the unapplied balance of the sum designated in the treaty.* The claim was accordingly brought, in pursuance of the act, before the Court of Claims for examination and determination. To aid in its examination Congress passed, on the 5th of April, 1870, an amendatory act authorizing Atocha, *13 Stat. at Large, 595. |