Osborn v. United States
23 L. Ed. 388, 1875 U.S. LEXIS 1389, 91 U.S. 474 (1876)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A full presidential pardon restores an offender's rights to property forfeited for the offense, provided the property has not vested in a third party and the proceeds remain under the court's control. Conditions in a pardon limiting claims on property that was "sold" are construed strictly and do not bar recovery of proceeds from assets that were collected rather than sold.
Facts:
- The United States government confiscated numerous money bonds and mortgages belonging to the petitioner as a penalty for his participation in the rebellion during the Civil War.
- A federal District Court ordered the debtors on these bonds to pay the amounts owed into the court.
- The court collected over $20,000 from the debtors, partly through voluntary payments and partly through sales of the mortgaged lands, which served as security for the bonds but were not owned by the petitioner.
- The collected proceeds were held in the court's registry, where court officers improperly took possession of the funds.
- In September 1865, the President of the United States issued a full pardon to the petitioner for all offenses arising from his participation in the rebellion.
- The pardon included a condition stating that the petitioner could not claim any property, or its proceeds, that had been sold by court order under confiscation laws.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States initiated a confiscation proceeding against the petitioner's property in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.
- The District Court decreed the condemnation and forfeiture of the petitioner's bonds and mortgages to the United States.
- After receiving a presidential pardon, the petitioner applied to the District Court for restoration of the proceeds of his property.
- The District Court denied the petitioner's application.
- The petitioner appealed the denial to the United States Circuit Court.
- The Circuit Court reversed the District Court's order, allowing the petitioner's application to proceed and ordering restitution.
- The officers of the court who were ordered to make restitution appealed the Circuit Court's ruling to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a presidential pardon, which contains a condition that the recipient cannot claim any property sold under confiscation laws, restore the recipient's right to the proceeds of his confiscated bonds that were collected by the court and remain within its control?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Field
Yes. A presidential pardon restores to its recipient all rights of property lost due to the pardoned offense, unless the property has already vested in another person through a judicial process or is specifically excepted by the pardon itself. The pardon, by removing the legal guilt for the offense, eliminates the basis for the forfeiture. The condition in this pardon barring claims on "sold" property does not apply because the petitioner's bonds were collected, not sold; the sales involved the mortgaged lands that secured the bonds but did not belong to the petitioner. Since the proceeds never left the legal control of the court and no third-party rights had vested, the pardon operates to restore the petitioner's right to them. The court retains inherent power to compel the return of funds improperly removed from its registry, even by its former officers.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the powerful effect of a presidential pardon on property rights forfeited as a penalty for a crime. It establishes that a pardon essentially voids the legal basis for a forfeiture, restoring the property to the original owner unless a third party's rights have attached, such as through a bona fide purchase. The decision narrowly construes conditions attached to pardons, ensuring that these acts of executive grace are given broad effect. Furthermore, it strongly affirms the inherent supervisory power of a court to control funds within its registry and to compel restitution from its own officers who misappropriate them.
