Volume 11 — Court of Claims Reports

On the defendants’ Appeal. The Reporters’ statement of tlie ease: The court found the following facts: I. The claimant, between the 1st day of January, 1873, and the 1st day of March, 1874, both inclusive, at the request of the-defendants, rendered to them, certain valuable services in the. transportation of their mails over the Union Pacific Eailroad, the same being transported at fair and reasonable rates of com-pen.sation, not exceeding the amounts paid by private…

On the defendants' Appeal. The Reporters’ statement of the case: The court found the following facts: I. This case was referred to the Court of Claims by the private act of Congress, approved June 8,1872, set forth in the petition. II.

On the claimants’ Appeal. The Reporters? statement of the case: The following are the findings of the court below : First. On the 19th of March, A. D. 1868, the claimants and ’General William Myers, chief quartermaster for the Department of the Platte, entered into a written contract for the transportation of military stores and supplies within contract-route No. 1, as therein fully set forth, which contract is annexed to and forms part of the petition. Seeond.

On the claimant’s Appeal. The Reporters' statement of the case: The decision in the court below went entirely upon the authority of the former decision in Medway's Oase. There being no other point in the case it Was not reported, and is merely noted among the judgments of the term in 8 O. Cls. B.., p. 560. The following are the findings of fact on which the appeal was argued.

On the defendants Appeal. The Reporters'1 statement of the case.

On the defendants’ Appeal. The Reporters’ statement of the case: The court below found the following facts: The claimant was employed in reservation No. 2 of the public grounds from the 1st January, 1867, until 11th May, 1870, under the Commissioner of Public Buildings, while that office existed, and, after it was abolished, under the Chief Engineer of the Army, in charge of the public buildings and grounds.

On the defendants' Appeal. The Reporters' statement of the case: The court below found the following facts : 1. Under and in pursuance of the Act February 22, 1867, (14 Stat.

On the clmmcmfs Appeal. The Reporters’ statement of the case: The court below found the following facts: In the year 1869, an arrangement was entered into between the Department of the Interior and the Department of War, for the supply, through the ¡Subsistence Department of the Army, of beef-cattle to the Indians, in pursuance of the fourth section of the act of April 10, 1869, “ making appropriations for the current and contingent expenses of the Indian Department, and for…

<p> On t]ie courts oten Motion. </p>

On the claimant’s Appeal. The Reporters' statement, of the case: This action was not brought until the 22 I. On the 13th day of July, 1861, William A. Lloyd, the claimant’s intestate, entered into a contract, in writing, with the President of the United States, whereby it was agreed that Lloyd should proceed South and learn the number of troops stationed in the different points and cities in the insurrectionary States, procuring plans of fortifications and forts, and gaining…

On the defendants’ Appeal. The Reporters1 statement of tbe ease: The court below found the following facts: The petitioner was a private soldier in the Army, and claims pay and bounty, and the court finds the facts to be: That the petitioner enlisted in the Army for three years, was enrolled on the 1st January, 1864, in Company B, Second Arkansas Volunteers, for a service of three years; he was mustered into the service January 16, 1864, to take effect from date of…

On Hall’s Appeal. The Reporters’ statement of the case: It does not appear by tbe findings whether the alleged transaction between Hall and… Held: are based upon the same principle. If by operation of law an implied contract arises in such a case, it is difficult to understand why an express contract would not be valid. Alexander Gibson removed from Baltimore to Charleston, taking with him a young girl named Phoebe, the daughter of a free woman. The girl was held as a slave.

On the claimant’s Appeal. The Reporters’ statement of the case: The court below found tbe following facts: In pursuance of the authority contained in the aAct to authorize a national loan, and for other purposes,” approved July 17,1861, (12 Stat.

On the claimants’ Appeals. The Reporters’ statement of the case : The court below did not find the facts in this case according to its ordinary practice, inasmuch as the' statute conferring… Held: in Lessieur v. Price, that there must be a concurrent vestiture of title, and that the injured land must have vested in the United States at the time that title was taken by the new location ; and it has held a location invalid where there was no relinquishment.

On the claimants Appeal. The Reporters'’ statement of tbe case: This case is remarkable in having been decided on tbe merits in both courts at the same term — in the Court of Claims on the 14th of February, 1876, and in the Supreme Court on the 8th May following. The appeal immediately taken from the judgment of the court below was submitted on printed arguments in the Supreme Court and promptly decided.

On the defendants’ Appeal. The Reporters’ statement of the case : The following are the findings of fact and conclusions of lav returned by the court below: I. In May, 1864, the claimant resided at Athens, Tenn., where he continued to reside till October of that year, when he enlisted' in the Army of the United States, and continued in its service until the end of the rebellion.

On the claimant’s Appeal. The ’Reporters' statement of the case: The court below found the following facts: I. On the 20th April, 1865, the Secretary of War issued, and caused to be published in the public newspapers and otherwise, a proclamation whereby he announced that there would be paid by the War Department, “ for the apprehension of John H. Surratt, one of Booth’s accomplices,” $25,000 reward; and also that “ liberal rewards will be paid for any information that shall…

On the claimant’s Appeal. The Reporters' statement of the case: As giving a comprehensive history of the title to a very large tract of land — over… Held: at which the president thereof stated that he had received a dispatch from the agent of Carondelet in Washington City, requesting that an absolute deed be sent to him for the Jefferson Barracks tract; whereupon, on the 18th of March, 1852, an ordinance was passed repealing the ordinance No. 53 of January 24, 1852. 33.

On the defendants’ Appeal. The Reporters’ statement of the ease : The terms of the treaty and of the President's proclamation, opening the port of New Orleans, will be found in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

On the claimant’s Appeal. The Reporters' statement of the case: The following are the facts found by the court below: The claimant was, during the war of the rebellion, a resident of Marengo County, Alabama. While said war was in progress, he sold to the so-called Confederate States of America 177 bales of cotton, agreeing to accept in payment therefor eight-per-cent, bonds of said Confederate States, and retaining possession of the cotton, subject to future delivery.

On the Claimant’s Appeal. The Reporters’ statement of the case : The attempt here was to hold the Government liable for moneys which never reached the Treasury, on the ground that a right of action against -the officers who illegally seized and sold tlie claimant’s property lias been taken away by certain acts of Congress, which have at the same time directly or impliedly ratified such proceedings and assured the injured parties of relief by suit in the Court of Claims, to…

On the■ defendants’ Appeal. The Reporters’ statement of the cases: These cases came to a hearing in the court below, on the commissioner’s report and the motion to confirm it, on the one side, and the exceptions filed to it on the other. Where proper exceptions were taken by either side, the court took up the evidence and determined the facts irrespective of the commissioner’s report.

On the claimant’s Motion. The Reporters' statement of the case: The following motion was made by the attorneys of the claimant in this case: The claimant, by his counsel, Bartley & Casey, moves to amend the petition by alleging that Elijah Mount was the owner of the cotton sued for, instead of his wife, Mrs. E. E. Mount. He further begs leave to suggest the death of Elijah Mount, and to file letters of administration on his estate to William G-..

On the Proofs. The Reporters' statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: 1.

On the Proofs. The Reporters’ statement of the case: The court found the following facts: 1.The contract set forth in the petition was entered into, as alleged, in pursuance of an estimate made by the proper officer of the quartermaster’s department of the Department of Dakota, and after an .advertisement inviting proposals therefor, and a bid made by claimant and accepted by such officer, which bid was as follows: “ Pembina, D. T., April 14th, 1871. “ Lieut.

On the Proofs. The Reporters’ statement of the case : This was supposed to be a test case intended to bring up the questions of the Government’s liability for Tice meters purchased through its agency and pursuant to its requirements, both on account of the general inadequacy of all such meters and a special defect in the particular meter furnished to the claimant.

On the defendants’ Demurrer. The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the material parts of the petition demurred to: “ To the honorable the judges of the Court of Claims: “ Tour petitioner, Nathaniel Wilson, a citizen of the United States, resident and domiciled in the District of Columbia, respectfully represents: “ That for one year from and after the thirtieth day of June, in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six, and during the whole of said…

On the defendants'’ Demurrer. The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the material parts of the petition demurred to: “ To the honorable the judges of the Court of Claims : “ Tour petitioner, George W. Phillips, a citizen of the United States, resident and domiciled in the District of Columbia, respectfully represents: “That for one year from and after the thirtieth day of June, in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six, and during the whole of…

<p> The claimant brings his action as assignee of a Treamry warrant. The defendants more for an order to examine the claimant and his assignor as witnesses. The claimant contends that he is not responsible for, and cannot be required to produce, an assignor having no remaining or resulting interest in the claim. </p> <p>I. The right given to the Government by the Revised Statutes (§ 1080) to examine a claimant as a witness, under an order of the court, cannot be extended to any other person; i. e., the claimant can be held responsible only for his own non-attendance as a witness.</p> <p>II. The Government may call, as a witness before trial, the assignor of the claim in suit, or a person interested in the event, (Revised Statutes, § 1079,) and may withhold the testimony at the trial, as it may that of a claimant. (Revised Statutes, § 1080.)</p>

On the Proofs. The Reporters’ statement of the case : The following facts were found by the court: I. The claimant was in the year 1864, and afterward, the owner of a steam-vessel called Wyoming, which was built in 1853, and before entering the service of the Government, as hereinafter stated, was run between the city of Few York and Elizabethport, N. J.; and she was not built to go to sea. II.

On the Proofs. The Reporters’ statement of the case: For the history of this case subsequent to the decision of the Court of Claims, see the report among the Supreme Court cases, p. 322, ante. The following are the findings of fact on which the appeal was taken and the judgment rendered: 1.

On the Proofs. The Reporters1 statement of tbe case: The following are tbe facts found by the court: 1.

On the claimant's Demurrer. The Reporters' statement of tbe case: The record upon which this case was considered by the court was materially modified by agreement of parties after the decision, and the case was then carried to the Supreme Court bv appeal, where it is now pending. The opinions set forth the legal questions determined.

<p>Francis enters into a contract with a, quartermaster for the sale and delivery of 1,000 cords of wood. He then malees a power of attorney irrevocable, authorizing Myrick to receive and sign all vouchers and draw the money thereon. Myrick performs all the work, delivers the wood, receives payments, and gives receipts, “ as the attorney in fact” of Francis. Subsequently Francis, in consideration of money advanced, labor performed, S>-c., transfers the claim to Mm, and authorizes him to bring this action in his (Francis’s) name. He brings the suit for damages caused by the defendants’ officers during theper-fcrrmance of the contract. The defendants, among other things, plead the annulment of the contract under the statute by reason of its transfer in fact to Myrick.</p> <p>I. The purpose of the Act 17th July, 1862, (12 Stat. L., 596, § 14; Rev. Stat., § 3737) prohibiting the transfer of Government contracts, was to secure to the Government the personal attention and services of the contractor and to render him liable to punishment in certain cases under § 16 of the same act.</p> <p>II. No technical, formal, or written transfer of a Government contract by the contractor is necessary to bring the case within the imohibition of the Act 17th July, 1862, (12 Stat. L., p. 596, § 14; Rev. Stat., § 3737.) It is sufficient to annul the contract that the facts disclose a substantial transfer of it or of an interest therein by whatever means attempted, or however much disguised; ex gr.: where the contractor made a power of attorney authorizing another to receive and collect the vouchers, and to receive and receipt for payments, and the nominal agent performed and subsequently procured an assignment of the nominal contractor’s claim, with authority to bring suit in his name, held that the contract was thereby annulled and that no suit could be maintained on it.</p>

On the Proofs. The Reporters’ statement of the case: It should be noted in this case that the paymaster merely sent the package of money by the orderly, taking no steps whatever to verify the assumption that it reached the depository.

On the Proofs. The Reporters’ statement of the ease: The claimant’s petition was entitled Webster M. Raines, for himself and as executor of the will of Cynthia F. Raines, deceased, to the use of Belva A. Loelmood, v. The United States. The allegations of the petition did not conform to this title, but set forth the title of the assignors and an assignment from them purporting to transfer a part interest in the claim.

<p>The defendants “proceed to trial upon the merits _and the claimmits recover judgment for a large amount. The defendants appeal therefrom, hut subsequently move in this court for a neiv trial. The motion is founded on newly discovered evidence not "known to the officers of the Government until after the rendition of the judgment, and is made under the statute,{Rev. Stat., § 1088,") for fraud, wrong, and injustice done to the defendants hy the recovery of the judgment. The motion is supported hy twenty affidavits of officers and soldiers showing that none of the claimants’ cotton xoas brought out after capture. The claimants’ evidence on the trial established the contrary, but did not disclose the troops which made the capture ". They being unlcnoivn to the Attorney-General at the time of trial, but subseqiiently discovered, were examined ex parte, and positively contradict the claimants’ witnesses.</p> <p>Whore the claimants’ evidence, uncontradicted on the trial, establishes the capture and seizure of a large quantity of cotton by United States troops, not, however, identified, and the Attorney-General subsequently discovers what troops made the capture, and produces their affidavits to show that no cotton was seized and brought out, so that the court is satisfied prima facie that gross wrong and injustice, if not fraud, have been done to the defendants, a new trial will be granted under the stat ute, (Eev. Stat., § 1088.)</p>

On the Proofs. The Reporters’ statement of the case: The court found the following facts : I. The claimant was carrying on the business of a brewer at 70 Bradford street, in the city of Memphis, Tennin the year 1873, and on the 3d of May paid to the collector of internal revenue for his district $100 for special tax on his business from May 1, 1873, to April 30, 1874, for which a special-tax stamp was given to him by the collector. II.

On the Proofs. The Reporters’ statement of the case: The court found the following facts: I. On the 12th June, 1865, there arrived at New Orleans, on the steamer Gray Eagle, from Vicksburgh, one hundred and twenty-five bales of cotton belonging to Samuel De Bow & Oo., the claimant’s assignors in bankruptcy. At that time no shipments of cotton to New Orleans were allowed, except such as were consigned to the purchasing-agent of the Treasury.

On the Proofs. The Reporters' statement of the ease: The evidence in this case was exceedingly voluminous and exceedingly conflicting. From it the court deduced, among others, the following facts: The contract between Lieut.

On the Proofs. The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts found by the court: I. The claimant being first lieutenant in the Twenty-first Regiment of United States Infantry, on the 16th August, 1869, at his own request', was ordered home to await orders. On the 1st September, 1869, he accordingly left his post at Camp Reno, Ariz., and, proceeded to his home in Detroit, Mich.

On the Proofs. The Reporters’ statement of the ease: The court found the following facts: Before the board of commissioners appointed under the second section of the “ act making appropriations for the support of the Army for the year ending June 30,1872, and for other pur-posesf approved March 3,1871, (16 Stat.

On the Proofs. The Reporters1 statement of the case: The facts appear in the following findings of the court: I. On the 6th April, 1865, the claimant lost, by robbery while in the line of his duty as assistant paymaster in the Army at Franklin, Tex., a package of Government funds. The package was in his official safe at his quarters, and the loss was without fault or neglect on the part of the officer. II.

<p>Suit is brought under the Abandoned or captured property Act by Sail for the use of Schiffer Go., to whom she sold cotton after capture. A motion is now made to substitute the party in interest as claimant.</p> <p>One for whose use a suit is brought under the Abandoned or captured property Act, (the vendee after capture,) and who appears on the record as equitably entitled to an interest in a fund derived from the captured property, may be substituted as claimant though the jurisdictional period for ■ bringing such suits has expired.</p>

On the Proofs. The Reporters’ statement of the case: Some of the legal conclusions rendered in this case are not discussed in the opinion, but will be found in the conclusions of law appended to the following findings of the court: I. In May, 1873, the chief quartermaster of the Department of the Platte advertised for proposals, for constructing certain buildings at the military post of Beaver, in the Territory of Utah.

On the Proofs. The Reporters'1 statement of the case: The following are the material parts of the contract which formed the subject-matter of this suit: “This agreement witnesseth: That the said Brevet Major-General J. H. Wilson, U. S. A., Lieutenant-Colonel 35th Infantry, for and in behalf of the United States of America, and the said Charles G. Case and F. D. Yan Wagener, for their heirs, executors, and administrators, have mutually agreed, and by these presents do…

<p> On the claimants Motion. </p>

On the assignee’s Motion. The Reporters’ statement of the motion: The suit here was brought by the bankrupt before his insolvency, but the agreement with his attorneys assigning to them 50 per cent, of the claim was not made until after his assignment in bankruptcy.

On the Proofs. The Reporters’ statement of the case : The contract in this case, under which the claimant’s services were rendered, was in the following terms: “This contract, entered into this 1st day of March, 1871, at Washington, in the Dist. of Columbia, between the Surgeon-General of the United States Army and Dr. E. M. Schaeffer, of Washington,'in the Dist. of Columbia, witnesseth that, for the consideration hereinafter mentioned, the said Dr. Schaeffer promises and…

On the Proofs. The Reporters1 statement of the case: The contract in this case provided, with regard to the delivery of the goods, as follows; “It is agreed that deliveries of the above-named articles shall and will be made as follows: 5,000 yards to be delivered in June, 25,000 in July, 25,000 yards in'August, 35,000 yards in September, 50,000 yards in October, 50,000 yards in November, and 10,000 yards on or before December 15th, 1864. “In case of failure oh the part of…

On the Proofs. The Reporters' statement of tbe case: The court found the following facts: On the 24th December, 1867, at Washington, the advertisement, a copy of which is annexed to the petition, was published by the Treasury Department, and is as follows: “ Treasury Department, “ Washington, 1). 0,, December 24, 1867. “All persons desiring to furnish designs for internal-revenue stamps, or plans for their cancellation, are invited’to submit them for examination at this…

On the Proofs. The Reporters’ statement of the case: A number of contracts existed between the Ordnance Office and the claimants, all of which contained substantially the following provision as to payment: “ Payments in sucb funds as the Treasury Department may provide, for each delivery, are to be made on certificates of inspection and receipt by the United States inspectors, at the rate of three dollars and seventy-nine cents ($3.79) per set, for each set of infantry…

On the Proofs. The Reporters’ statement of the case : This case is substantially like that of De Bow, (ante,) except that here the defendant set up the internal-revenue taxes by way of set-off.

On the Proofs, The Reporters’ statement of tbe ease. The court found: That previous to the letting and making of said contracts,, it was agreed between said Irving Eggleston and the petitioner that said contracts should be obtained and taken in the name-of said Eggleston, and that the petitioner should become one of the sureties on the bonds to be given therefor, and that the expenses of performance and the profits on said contracts should be divided between them as follows,…

On the Proofs. The Reporters’ statement of tbe case. I. On the 7th February; 1817, Moses Shepherd entered into a contract with Elie Williams, the agent of the United States, to construct certain mason-work and bridges upon the Cumberland road, by the terms of which contract the work was to be completed in such manner and form as the superintendent of the United States might direct and approve, and no mason-work was to be paid for except such as should be approved by the…