Volume 18 — Court of Claims Reports

This action was brought under the provisions of Revised Statutes, §§ 1059,1062, by a disbursing officer, for relief from responsibility on account of the alleged loss of public funds in his custody, while in the line of his duty, and without fault or negligence on his part.

This suit was brought December 13, 1880. After the evidence had been filed showing that the claim sued upon had been rejected by the Board of Audit, the claimant abandoned its prosecution in this court. The defendant immediately, on on the 11th of May, 1882, filed a plea of set-off or counter-claim to recover back from the claimant the sum of $500 overpaid to him in 1874 by the Board of Public Works, upon the settlement of another and different account.

The actions of Dayton and Ritchie having been referred to a referee to state an account between them and the District, and the referee having made his report, setting out, in addition to stating an account, that papers on file with the District authorities indicated that there were claimants for the money found to be due from the District to Dayton or Ritchie, giving their names and the amounts supposed to be claimed by them, This motion was made in behalf of Dayton and…

The original action having been dismissed May 8, 1876, a motion was made on the part of the claimant in December, 1882, to reinstate it upon tbe docket, that it might be tried upon its merits, alleging several grounds for the request, all which sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. The motion was submitted upon the papers filed in the case and without argument.

moved, that Oapt. E. W. Tyler, a retired officer of the Army, and recently-admitted to practice in this court, might be allowed to appear as his assistant in certain cases brought by him, Mr. Warden, against the United States, and herein pending.

The following are tbe facts as found by the court: I. On the 16th day of October, 1866, a contract was entered into between the claimant and the defendants, of which the following is a copy: This article of contract, made the sixteenth day of October, infthe year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six, between the United States of America (acting in this behalf by their Postmaster-General) and the Pacific Mail Steamship Company, with Howard Potter and Francis…

The deposition of a person interested in the claim but not a party to the suit thereon having been taken under Revised Statutes, § 1079, on behalf of the United States, to defeat the claim, the claimant moves to strike the deposition from the records, as not competent evidence under that section. The question involved in the motion is settled by the decision in Bradley’s Oase (104 U. S. R., 442), affirming the judgment of the Court of Claims.

This case was heard at a former term of this court, upon a general demurrer filed by the defendants, and then sustained on the ground that the long practice of the executive officers-whose duty it was to administer the law, unobjected to, had given a construction to doubtful and ambiguous language of the statutes, which the court did not feel authorized at that late day to change.

Defendant’s motion. T. Ford & Co. v. The United States. And now come tbe United States, by the Attorney-General, and move for a new trial in the above-stated case, on the ground that documentary evidence (hereto attached), which is believed to be material, has been discovered since the trial of said case, showing the following facts, viz: 1st. That Maj. Walter McFarland, on November 16, 1875, transmitted to the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, the bid of T. Ford & Co.…

<p>The facts upon which the motion was argued sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.</p>

The following are the facts found by the court: I. Claimant was an officer in the Navy from August 10 to September 16,1872. II. August 10, 1872, claimant was ordered by his superior officer to proceed from Washington via New York, the Pacific mail steamer, Aspinwall, and the Isthmus of Panama, to the navy-yard at Mare Island, California, and report for duty on the United States steamer Benicia. III.

The following are the facts found by the court: I. At the times hereafter referred to, James Green, the testator of the claimants, was the owner of certain real property in Alexandria, Ya., and of the hotel thereon situated, known as the Mansion House. He was also a resident of Alexandria.

This case involves the construction of Revised Statutes, §§ 1556,1558, relating to the pay of retired officers of the Navy, and the special Act of April 7, 1882, ch. 72 (22 Stat. L., 41), passed for the relief the claimant. The following are the facts found by the court. The provisions of the statutes are stated in the opinion of the court. I. On the 3d of September, 1855, the claimant was commissioned a surgeon in the Navy. II.

The following are the facts found by the court: I. The contracts annexed to and forming part of the petition were executed by the parties for the… Held: in the Chicago and Northwestern Bailway Company’s Case, that tbe Postmaster-General was authorized to make tbe contracts, and that they were legal and binding upon the parties, but that tbe passage by Congress of tbe Act of July 12,1876, directing a reduction of the pay for railway transportation generally, “operated as a…

The following are the facts found by the court: I. Under the provisions of the Act of June 20, 1878, chap. 365 (20 Stat.

The following are the facts as found by the court: I. On the 17th of January, 1861, the steamboat Clara Dolsen was the property of William T. Dunning, A. P. Stewart, and S. S. Edwards, all of Saint Louis, Mo., and citizens of the United States, the first owning nine-sixteenths, the second five-sixteenths, and the last two-sixteenths.

The following are the facts found by the court: I. The-claimant was a corporation existing under the laws of the State of Massachusetts prior to and on the 3d of March, 1870, and has continued to exist and still exists as such corporation. II. The following correspondence and orders 'appear among the records of the Navy Department: ■ BOSTON, March 5th, 1877. Wm.

The facts found by the court are fully set out in the opinion of the court. IN HIJKILL’S CASE. 1. Hukill was a soldier of the United States Army, and, although he did not enlist till December 28, 1863, the presumption is that he was loyal during the entire war, and was therefore not within the statutes of the Confederate Government, which allowed payment only to “loyal citizens of the Confederate States.” in watt's case. 2.

The claimants sue' for work done for the District under two contracts set forth in the findings. The defendants file a plea of set-off and counter-claim for overpayments made through the Board of Audit. The facts sufficiently appear in the following findings made by the court: TENTH-STREET WORK; CONTRACT NO. 152.

The following are tbe facts as found by the court: I. The contract annexed to and forming part of the petition was executed by the parties for the transportation of the United States mails as set forth in the petition. [The contract was for carrying the mails for the term of four years, from July 1,1875, to and including June 30,1879, and each contained the following article, which is the material part involved in the present controversy: 9 th.

The claimant sues for work clone for tbe District of Columbia, under contracts with the Board of Public Works. The defendant flies a plea of counter-claim for overpayments made through the Board of Audit. The following are the facts found by the court: GRADING, ETC., Q STREET AND ALLEY IN SQUARE 140; CONTRACT 723.

The claimant sues for the proceeds of cotton received from his testator in Mississippi in 1863, bringing his action under the Abandoned or captured property Act of March 12, 1863. The material facts and questions of law involved are substantially the same as those in the Winchester Case (14 C. Cls. E., 13).

This action is brought to recover the value of a horse lost by the claimant while in the military service of the United States. The jurisdiction of the court rests upon the Act of March 3, 1849, ch. 129 (9 Stat. L., 414; Eev. Stat., § 3482), and the Acf of June 22, 1874, ch. 193 (18 Stat. L., 193, and 1 Suppl. Eev. Stat., 84), held in Thomas’s Case (16 C. Cls.

This is an action for damages for non-performance in full by the defendants’ officer of a contract alleged to have been made with the Commissioner of Indian'Affairs. All the facts are set out in full in the following findings by the court, and are succinctly stated in the opinion thereon. .

The following are the facts found by the court in each case: Mitchell’s case.

<p> Motion for a new trial. </p> <p>Held:</p> <p>I.In making the findings of fact of a case,'the court sets out, in accordance with the rule of the Supreme Court in that regard, only the “facts established hy the evidence.” Facts alleged on the one side and the other which thé court doesrnot find to have been proved are not set out in the findings, and such omission is no ground for a new trial.</p> <p>II.The reargument of a case once decided cannot he permitted upon the sole ground that one of the parties is dissatisfied with the conclusions reached hy the court as to the facts of the case upon the evidence submitted, unless in his motion for a new trial such party points to evidence which the court, on examination, finds to have escaped its attention and to have been omitted from its consideration.</p> <p>III.Nor will a new trial be granted for alleged error in law or fact when the motion therefor indicates that the party making it desires only to reargue the whole case upon the facts and the law exactly as they were presented at the trial, without any indication that he has anything new to offer.</p>

The following are the facts found by the court: 1. The following letters were addressed by the claimant to officers of the defendant at the time of their respective dates, and action was taken upon them by the Board of Public Works of ,the District of Columbia, as shown by. the respective in-dorsements upon them: Georgetown, D. C., Oot. 3d, 1871.

This is an action to recover pay as a retired chief engineer in the Navy, involving the construction of Revised Statutes, §§ 1556,1588. The following are the facts found by the court: I. Claimant entered the Navy September 22,1849, and was commissioned chief engineer August 12,1861. II.

This is an action like that of Rutherford’s (ante, 111), involving the construction of Revised Statutes, §§ 1556, 1588, as to the pay of retired officers of the Navy. The following are the facts found by the court: I. Claimant was commissio'ned a lieutenant in the Navy February 22, 1867. II. He was placed on the retired list November 9,1868, because he was not recommended for promotion, and has ever since been borne on said list. III.

Tbe claimant bank sues to recover $2,000, which it alleged was sent by its cashier to the United States Treasurer at .Washington, and never accounted for. It was proved that the cashier of the bank delivered a package-alleged to contain $2,000 in mutilated national-bank notes to Adams Express Company, at Norwich, Conn., to be forwarded to the United States Treasurer at Washington for redemption.

This is a motion to reinstate a case dismissed for want of prosecution. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

The amount in controversy in this case being less than $3,006 and the claimant not having a right of appeal, no finding of facts was made by the court. The facts are sufficiently set forth in the opinion. 1. The Court of Claims has jurisdiction over all claims arising under contracts made by the levy court. (Act of June 16, 1880, Suppl. Rev. Stat., 562; 21 Stat. L., 284; 15 C. Cls. R.,. YII.) 2.

The following are the facts found by the court: I. In November, 1877, the claimant transported three officers and sixty-eight men belonging to the Army of the United States, one interpreter, two hundred and sixty-seven adult Indian (Nez Percé) prisoners, and fifty-two Indian prisoners between the ages of five and twelve years, from Saint Paul, Minn., to Fort Leavenworth, Kans., by railroad.

This is an action of contract against the District of Columbia, -the facts of which are fully set forth in the following findings by the court: FIRST CLAIM. I. The claimant bought at a tax sale of the former corporation of Washington, on May 9, 1865, lot 18 of square 79 in the city of Washington, assessed as the property of D. G-. Major, and received a deed therefor June 20,1867. II.

These are suits brought to recover pensions withheld from the claimants and paid to the Soldiers’ Home. They were all referred to a referee to state the accounts, and his reports-therein, being confirmed by the court, constitute the findings, of fact. The facts are set forth in the opinion of the court.

A controversy arose in the Treasury Department between two adverse claimants for the payment of certain bonds called in for redemption,… Held: as they were, in large numbers, during the refunding operations, in almost every civilized country, of any of the immunities which the general commercial law threw around them when issued by the Government, or to impair their value, •after the calls, in the hands of those who held them, as the representatives of money in the'markets…

The following are the facts found by the court : I. On the 8th day of October, 1875, the Lake Superior and Mississippi Eailroad Company, a corporation created under the laws of the State of Minnesota, entered into the following contract with the defendants : This article of contract, made the eighth day of October, in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five, between the United States of America (acting in this behalf by the Postmaster-General) and the Lake…

The following are the facts found by the court: I. On the 11th September, 1875, the Flint and Pére Marquette Eailwav Company, which was then a corporation created under the laws of the State of Michigan, and owning and operating a certain railroad within the limits of said State, entered into the following contract, in writing, writh the Post-Office Department: This article of contract, made the 11th day of September, in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five,…

This action was brought to recover for carrying the mails in Missouri in 1861. The following are the facts found by the court: I. The contract mentioned in the claimant’s petition was duly -executed by both parties and set forth in full m the exhibit thereto as therein stated. II.

The following are the facts found by the court: I. February 14, 1868, the claimant was appointed second lieutenant of the Thirty-fourth Regiment of Infantry of the United States Army. April'12,1869, the Thirty-fourth Regiment was disbanded in Mississippi, and the claimant became unassigned and put on waiting orders. July 14, 1869, the claimant was assigned to the Thirteenth Begiment, then in Dakota, and ordered to join it.

This action is brought to recover payment for transportation services for which the claimant has a voucher, upon which part payment only has been made. He sues to recover the balance.

This is an action upon an allowance made by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue under Revised Statutes, § 3220, for repayment of a judgment recovered by the claimant against a collector of internal revenue, for a tax illegally assessed or collected.

This is an action upon an allowance made by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue under Revised Statutes, § 3220, for the refund of taxes erroneously assessed and paid. As the case involves less than $3,000 in controversy, and the claimant has no right of appeal, the court makes no findings of facts, but the facts are fully set out in the opinion of the court. 1.

This is a suit in equity brought under the provisions of the following special Act of Congress (19 Stat. L. 490): Chap. 279. — AN ACT for the relief of lames W. Harvey and James Hivesey, of the firm of Harvey & tivesey, of wisconsin.

The following motion for a new trial in Powers’ case (ante, 263) was presented by the claimant’s counsel. It was submitted by Mr. Harvey Spalding without argument: Now comes the said claimant, by his attorney, Harvey Spal-ding, and moves the court to grant him a new trial. The grounds of this motion are: First.

This case was transmitted to the court by the following order of the Secretary of the Interior: Department op the Interior, Washington, January 28, 1882.

The following are the facts found by the court: I. On the 18th of October, 1867, the territory of Alaska was formally transferred by Russia to the United States, at Sitka. II. After said transfer William S. Dodge was appointed collector of customs at Sitka; and in June or July, 1868, he was in the possession and occupancy of the northern part of the-building described in the claimants’ petition, which was used as a customs warehouse.

The followiug are the facts found by tlie court: I. In November, 1864, there was a general concentration of troops at Nashville, Tenn., under the command of General Thomas, and this army was increased from day to day by forces collected for a forward movement against the armies of the enemy under command of General Hood, wlio had been, on the 15th and 16th days of December, 1864, defeated near Nashville; and a special command, consisting of about 30,000 cavalry, under…

The following are the facts found by the court: I. Claimant is the administratrix of James Brown, deceased. Said decedent was appointed a'boatswain in the Navy of the United States from January 4, 1862. II. October 22, 1872, claimant’s intestate was placed upon the retired list, as appears in the following record: Navy Department, Bukeau oe Navigation and Oeeice oe Detail, Washington, 3d Oet., 1872.

The folio wing, are the facts found by the court: I.fln 1878 claimant entered the Naval Academy as a cadet-engineer, and June 9,1882, having successfully passed the final academic examination, received the following certificate: UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADEMY. This certifies that Cadet-Engineer Harry G. Leopold has completed the prescribed course of study at the United States Naval Academy, and has successfully passed the required examination before the Academic Board.

The following are the facts found by the court: I. Burr S. Craft, a resident of Princess Anne County, in Virginia, purchased of a banking firm, in New York, for value received, and in the regular course of business, a United States gold certificate, issued under tbe Act of Congress of Mivrch 3, 1863, § 5 (12 Stat. at L., 711), of which the following is a copy (omitting the ornamentation): No. 25378.

The following are the facts found by the court: I. A contract was made June-24, 1872, between the Board of Public Works of the District… Held: fully responsible according to the terms of said contract No. 355, so far as they may or can apply to the work herein specified, the same'as if he was the party of the second partto said contract, and that he will strictly adhere to, carry out, and fulfill each and every article and stipulation of the same not inconsistent with this…

The following are tbe fact, found by tbe court: I. On tbe 18th of September, 1871, tbe following contract was entered into between tbe claimant and tbe Board of Public Works of tbe District of Columbia: This contract, made and concluded this eighteenth day of September, in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, by and between Henry D. Cooke, Alexander R. Shepherd, James’A. Magruder, A. B. Mullett, and S. P. Brown, constituting and composing the Board of Public…

A tract of land known as tbe Hill Place, in Saint Luke’s Parish, South Carolina, was a part of the estate so devised. • II. Held: that the indefinite failure of heirs of the body was controlled by the limitation to the survivors; and the devise was good, both as to the real and the personal estate. {He Treville v. Ellis, Bailey, 40; McGorlde'V. Bladeetal., 7E. B, 407.) Testator bequeathed personally toliis daughter, “to her and the heirs of her body; but should…

The following are the facts found by the court: 1. On the 19th day of November, 1873, the claimant’s intestate was a captain in the Navy of-the United States, and a Naval Examining Board duly organized according to law had under consideration his application for promotion. It appeared that the Medical Board had then recommended him as physically qualified.

The following are the facts found by the court: I. David Irvine and O. J. Field, deceased, loyal citizens of the United States, were in February, 1863, owners of 67 bales of cotton produced by them on their plantation in Bolivar County, Mississippi, which cotton was in that month seized by a naval force of the United States belonging to the gunboat Conestoga, for which the following receipt was given: U. S. Gunboat Conestoga, .Mississippi River, Feb. 20, 1803.

The following are the facts found.'by the court: I. The claimant is a corporation, duly created, organized, established, and existing under the general incorporation laws of Nebraska, and as such owns and operates it railroad between Plattsmouth and Kearney, in the State of Nebraska. II.

The following are the facts found by the court: I. The claimant, George O. Reid, from February 7, A. D. 1877, to and including the 12th day of November, A. D. 1879, was a first lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps. II. On the 6th day of February, 1877, the following order was issued: Headquarters Marine Corps, Commandant’s Oottce, Washington, D. C., February 6th, 1877.

The following are the facts found by the court: I. The claimant is the bona fide holder and owner of four certificates, duly issued by the Board of Public Works of the District of Columbia, each for $100, each duly indorsed, and ■each of the form following : Ho. —.] - [.$100.

The following are the facts found by the court: 1. The claimant and the defendant, through the Board of Public Works, entered into a contract as follows: CONTRACT No, 835.

The following are the facts found by the court: I. In the month of July, 1863, and for some years previous, John H. Thomas, who was then living, was owner of a plantation on the northerly side of the Yazoo Eiver, about 7 miles from Yazoo City, in the State of Mississippi, and in June, 1863, had on said plantation, and stored under a shed, 112 bales of cotton, being the cotton alleged in the petition to have been seized by military forces of the defendants. II.

This case was transmitted to the court by the Secretary of War, under the provisions of Bevised Statutes, § 1063, by the following letter: War Department, Washington City, June 19, 1882. Held: without any qualification, that the claimant must be reimbursed his “actual outlay.” (2 C. Cls. R., 143; 1 ibid., 214.

Tbe following are the facts found by the court: . I. In August, 1865, the defendants’ officers received 43 bales of cotton in the State of Mississippi which had belonged to the claimant and which he had sold to one Humphries, who had sold the same to the Confederate States of America. For 39 of these bales the special agent of the Treasury Department gave the following receipt: Treasury Department, 2nd Agency, Olcolonu, Miss., Aug. 23d, 1865.

<p>The motion or stipulation in this case is given in full in the opinion of. the court.</p>

This action was commenced June 16, 1880, upon a certified allowance made by tbe Commissioner of Internal Revenue for the refund of a tax alleged to have been wrongfully collected,, &c. ' The following are the facts found by the court: I. After the passage of the Act of July 13, 1866, ch. 184 (14 Stat.

The following- are tlie facts found by the court: I. The claimant is a Cherokee Indian, and at the time of the occurrences hereinafter detailed was a citizen of the Cherokee Nation, but residing in the State of Arkansas. II. On the 22d of December, 1869, he owned a tobacco factory, situated in the Indian Territory, about 100 yards west of tbe western boundary line of the State of Arkansas, and about three miles south of the northwest corner of that State.

The following are the facts found by the court: I. The Senate Committee on Claims, on or about the 15th February, 1882, made the following report to the Senate; Mr. Fuye, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the following report (to accomxiany bill S. 486): [Senate Report No. 180, 47th Cong-., first session.] The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (S. 486) for the relief of Albert Grant, have examined the evidence submitted, and finding that it has been…

<p>The Supreme Court affirms the judgment of the Court of of Claims without delivering an opinion.</p>

<p>Under section 32 of the Act of July 28, 1866, ch.'299 (14 Stat. L., 337), a colonel of cavalry in the Army was retired in June, 1868, with the rank andretired pay of a major-general, because that was the rank of the command held by him when he was wounded.</p> <p>Under the Act of March 3, 1875, ch. 178 (18 Stat. L., 512), his retired rank and pay were changed to those of a brigadier-general, that being the actual rank held by him when he was wounded.</p> <p>Held by the Supreme Court:</p> <p>The claimant’s being retired with the rank of a major-general did not confer on him the office of a major-general, and Congress had power to change his retired rank and pay, as was held by the Court of Claims.</p>