Ownership of Ellsworth Uniform, Other Artifacts Disputed in New York Court Case




June 5, 2002--Who owns the uniform of E. Elmer Ellsworth, the first Union officer killed in the Civil War? Is it the property of the State of New York, or does it rightfully belong to a private group called the Seventh Regiment Fund?




The New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, ruled unanimously this week that the matter must be settled at trial. The court overturned two lower court rulings that dismissed the state's claims against the group for the uniform and a large collection of other artifacts.




''Some or all of the memorabilia here may well belong to the state,'' Chief Judge Judith Kaye wrote, and it should be up to a trial court to determine the question.




The Seventh Regiment was the name given to militia units in New York City dating back to the early years of the 19th century, according to Associated Press reports. The unit is now called the 107th Support Group of the New York Army National Guard.




The organization claims that they transferred ownership of artifacts and memorabilia donated by militia members over the years to a private fund created by the group in 1952. Their stand is that the statute of limitations for the state to dispute the transfer expired ten years after that, in 1962.




Besides the Ellsworth uniform the items controlled by the regiment fund include an 1871 painting by Thomas Nast and objects by Louis Tiffany. Estimates put the value of the objects between $6 and $10 million.




Marc Violette, a spokesman for state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, said the artifacts should be available to all New Yorkers for research and viewing.




''These artifacts are part of New York state's history and heritage,'' he said. ''They were given by members of the regiment to the regiment, which is an entity of New York state, and they can't simply be given away to a private organization.''




The state argued that it was not aware that the artifacts had been transferred to a private fund until the governor's office conducted a survey in 1996 designed to catalogue the state's military artifacts. At that time, the regiment fund barred state officials from seeing the artifacts, citing the 1952 transfer.




''It is ... not sufficient for a defendant secretly to declare ownership, when that declaration does nothing to inform the owner or any other interested party'' that a change in ownership is taking place, Judge Kaye wrote in the court ruling.




She also wrote that there are questions for the lower court to decide about whether individual artifacts could belong to the state or if they are properly held by the fund.




The court also rejected the attempt by state lawyers to prove that the state should not be subject to any statute of limitations on suits for the recovery of state property. To do so would ''carve a new exception'' out of statute of limitations laws that would apply to the state but not to individuals, the ruling said.

Home state TN

I once worked with a guy who had the last name Ellsworth, and claimed to be one of Elmer's descendants.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Ownership of Ellsworth Uniform, Other Artifacts Disputed in New York Court Case




June 5, 2002--Who owns the uniform of E. Elmer Ellsworth, the first Union officer killed in the Civil War? Is it the property of the State of New York, or does it rightfully belong to a private group called the Seventh Regiment Fund?




The New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, ruled unanimously this week that the matter must be settled at trial. The court overturned two lower court rulings that dismissed the state's claims against the group for the uniform and a large collection of other artifacts.




''Some or all of the memorabilia here may well belong to the state,'' Chief Judge Judith Kaye wrote, and it should be up to a trial court to determine the question.




The Seventh Regiment was the name given to militia units in New York City dating back to the early years of the 19th century, according to Associated Press reports. The unit is now called the 107th Support Group of the New York Army National Guard.




The organization claims that they transferred ownership of artifacts and memorabilia donated by militia members over the years to a private fund created by the group in 1952. Their stand is that the statute of limitations for the state to dispute the transfer expired ten years after that, in 1962.




Besides the Ellsworth uniform the items controlled by the regiment fund include an 1871 painting by Thomas Nast and objects by Louis Tiffany. Estimates put the value of the objects between $6 and $10 million.




Marc Violette, a spokesman for state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, said the artifacts should be available to all New Yorkers for research and viewing.




''These artifacts are part of New York state's history and heritage,'' he said. ''They were given by members of the regiment to the regiment, which is an entity of New York state, and they can't simply be given away to a private organization.''




The state argued that it was not aware that the artifacts had been transferred to a private fund until the governor's office conducted a survey in 1996 designed to catalogue the state's military artifacts. At that time, the regiment fund barred state officials from seeing the artifacts, citing the 1952 transfer.




''It is ... not sufficient for a defendant secretly to declare ownership, when that declaration does nothing to inform the owner or any other interested party'' that a change in ownership is taking place, Judge Kaye wrote in the court ruling.




She also wrote that there are questions for the lower court to decide about whether individual artifacts could belong to the state or if they are properly held by the fund.




The court also rejected the attempt by state lawyers to prove that the state should not be subject to any statute of limitations on suits for the recovery of state property. To do so would ''carve a new exception'' out of statute of limitations laws that would apply to the state but not to individuals, the ruling said.

Home state TN