Volume 21 — Court of Claims Reports

The Reporters’ statement of tbe case : There was no dispute as to the facts in this case, and they will be found stated in the opinion of the court.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The nature of the motion and the facts involved are stated in the opinion of the court.

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p>An officer on t]ie Brooklyn is ordered l>y the Navy Department to return on the Marion. Before the order reaches him the Marion is ordered to a port 1,000 miles distant and her return indefinitely postponed. Nevertheless the admiral in command formally orders the officer to report aboard the Marion for passage home, but informally gives him i>ermission to return on a merchantman if he defray the expíense thereof.</p> <p>I."Where a naval officer under orders to return home on a ship of war technically disobeys by returning on a merchantman he cannot receive mileage, though the exercise of his discretion in consequence of the changed position of the ship of war may have been a wise one.</p> <p>II.Where a naval officer did not return in the manner directed by the Department, and his action has not been ratified or approved, an informal permission by his immediate commanding officer to return in another manner does not alter the legal situation of bis claim for mileage.</p> <p>III.Permission given by an admiral on a foreign station to an officer to return by a merchantman at his own cost, instead of by a ship of war, as directed by the Navy Department, does not constitute the travel as upon public business.</p>

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the material facts found by the court which relate to the only issue involved in the case: The claimants, in common with the other members of the Stock Exchange, from whom moneys in like manner were collected, protested by themselves and their repres'entatives against the assessments and collections as illegal and unjust. , A committee of the Stock Exchange, representing all of the members of the exchange, including the…

The Reporter*’’ statement of the case : The case turned upon a single point of law, which, with the facts relating to it, will be found stated in the opinion of the court. It was taken immediately to the ¡Supreme Court, submitted under the 20th rule, and affirmed May 10, 1886. (118 U. S. R., 389.)

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following is the material fact found by the court- and which constituted the subject of controversy : The claimant sailed early in January, 1879, from Montevideo to Eio Janeiro, on a steamer of the Pacific Steam Navigation Company, in company with Commodore Temple and Midshipman William GL Hannum, aud a number of naval officers, intending to sail direct from Eio Janeiro to New York, but the steamer failing to connect with the…

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p>An officer in tlie Tenth Illinois Cavalry, -without fault of his own, is not mustered ip. But ill health prevents him from joining his company, and from performing the duties of the grade to which he was commissioned.</p> <p>The Act 3d Juno, 1884 (23 Stat. L., 34), which provides for paying officers of volunteers who, without fault of their own, were not mustered in, hut who performed the duties of the grade to which they were commissioned, does not extend to an officer who was prevented by ill health from joining his command and who consequently did not perform the duties of his grade.</p>

The Reporters’ statement of the case: All of the facts relating to this case were understood to have been set forth in the petition, and they are reviewed and stated in the opinion of the court:

The Reporters’ statement of the case: A simple question of law was involved in this case, which, with the facts relating to it, will be found set forth in the opinion of the court.

The Reporters' statement of the case: All of the material averments of the petition are quoted in the opinion of the court.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following is the finding referred to in the opinion of the court: The practice of reducing the allowances made to district attorneys for counsel fees by the courts first began about 1878, when Attorney-General Devens issued the following circular: “Department op Justice, “ Washington,-, 1878. “-, Esq., “ United States Attorney, District of-; “ Sir : Your attention is invited to the concluding clause of section 824 of the Revised…

The Beporters’ statement of the case: The resolution of the direct-tax commissioners for the State of South Carolina, imposing discriminating assessments upon different kinds of property in that State, which was the foundation of the present action, will be found quoted in extenso iu the opinion of the court.

The Reporters’ statement of tbe case: The action of the tax commissioners forming the basis of the present action will be found in the opinion in this case and in that of the preceding case of Seabrook.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: As appears by the opinion of the court, the sale took place during the life of the testator, and the claim,-under numerous decisions, passed to the executor. The controversy concerning the testator’s title was one of fact.

The (Reporters1 statement of the case: The interrogatories which the defendants moved to strike »out will be found quoted in the opinion of the court.

The Ne^orters' statement of tbe case: The order or communication of the Secretary of the Navy transmitting the claim will be found set forth in the opinion of the court. There was no oral argument, and the motion was submitted without a brief on either side.

The Reporters’ statement of the ease: The question was a single one, of law, whether the term “the ordinary of a navy-yard” includes the marine barracks in the city of Washington.

<p>The Reporters’ statement of the case:</p> <p>The facts of the motion appear in the opinion of the court.</p>

The Reporters’ statement of tbe case : Tbe only facts involved in tbe legal question of tbe case will be found stated in tbe opinion of tbe court.

The Reporters’ statement of the case : In this ease the court tiled findings of fact of great length, more than sufficient to fill fifty pages of this volume. They,, however, consist largely of extracts from public documents, and the substance of them is set forth in the opinion of the court. The following are specially cited or referred to in that opinion : I. Messrs.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The motion was to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, the only ground being the adverse report made upon the claim here in suit by the Southern Claims Commission.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The facts of the case refer only to the single question of statutory construction which it presents, and will be found in the opinion of the court.

<p>The Reporters'1 statement of the case :</p> <p>The facts appear sufficiently in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>The Reporters’ statement of the case :</p> <p>The facts are recited in the opinion of the court.</p>

The Reporters’ statement of the case: No question of fact was involved in this case. The facts found by the court relate chiefly to the amount of stamp sales in different years and the commissions withheld from the claimant. It was taken immediately to the Supreme Court, submitted under the 20th rule, and affirmed April 19, 1886. (118 U. S. R., 81.)

<p>The Reporters’ statement- of the case:</p> <p>The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.</p>

The Reporters' statement of the case: This case was submitted upon the proofs, but they being deemed insufficient it was remanded for further evidence under the opinion which follows.

The Reporters’ statement of tbe case: The grounds upon which these motions were placed appear in the opinion of the court.

The Reporters’ statement of tbe case: The following are the material facts of the case as found by the court: On March 15, 1882, claimant was ordered to report on board the United States training-ship New Hampshire for duty, and did so report on the 1st day of April, 1882.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts as found by the court: I. The claimant is a railroad company duly incorporated by the State of Florida. Its road was constructed in whole or in part by a land grant made by Congress on the condition that' the mails should be transported over said road at such price as Oongress should by law direct. (Actof May 17, 1856, ch. 31, §5; 11 Stat. L., 15.) II.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the material facts of the case as found by the court: I. The following order was issued by command of William S. Rosecrans, major-general, U. S. Army, commanding the Department of the Missouri: “ [General Orders, No. 176.] “ Headquarters Department of the Missouri, “ Saint Louis, Mo., September 26, 1864. “ Missourians : “ 1. * * * After'two years of barbarous and harassing war, in which every citizen, directly or…

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The question in the case being simply whether the unsubsidized portions of the Pacific railroads are subject to the provisions of the Thurman Act, and there being no dispute as to .the facts, the case was submitted on demurrer.

<p>The Reporters1 statement of the case:</p> <p>The facts of this case are recapitulated in the opinion of the court.</p>

The Reporters’ statement of the case: This case and the one which follows were tried and decided at the same time. Both relate to rent for portions of the-Honoré building in Chicago used for the post-office in that city. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>The Reporters’ statement of the case:</p> <p>The facts of this case are clearly set forth in the opinion of the court.</p>

The Reporters’ statement of tbe case: The facts on which the motion for a new trial was based will be found in the opinion of the court.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The question presented by the motion to dismiss was simply whether proof of the administrator’s loyalty was a jurisdictional prerequisite to maintaining a suit under the Bowman Act. No fact was controvert

The Reporters’ statement of the case : The court found the following distinctive fact, otherwise the case was identical with that of Symonds (ante): The U. S. S. Minnesota is one of the training-ships of the United States Navy, and has been such for more than ten years last past. She has been since the time this claim accrued stationed in New York Harbor, and cruises and moves about under her own power.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts of this case as found by the court: The claimant was appointed as of California additional aid-de-camp, with the rank of colonel, in the military service of the United States, on the 23d of June, 1862. He was in Washington City at the time, and there received his appointment.

The Reporters'1 statement of the case: The private act referring the claim and relieving the case from the bar of a former judgment and the effect of the statute of limitations will be found in the opinion of the court, which likewise sets forth the facts.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The single statutory question involved in the case was raised by demurrer to the claimant’s petition. The only question here is whether provost-marshals were officers of volunteers. They were appointed by the President under the Act 3d March, 1863 (12 Stat.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following' are the facts as found by the court: I. Certain real estate, known as part country lot 520, Auction street, 1 acre, situated in Memphis, Tenn., was, June 25, 1864, sold by the direct tax commissioners-in Tennessee for non-payment to the United States of direct taxes thereon, and was sold and struck off to William J. Smith and Fielding Hurst for the sum of $300.

The Reporters' statement of the case: The facts deduced by the court from the evidence upon which the case was submitted will be found in the opinion.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: This case was heard and submitted upon the evidence, but subsequently was remanded, with others, for argument upon the question of jurisdiction. That question was argued at length by a number of counsel representing this and other cases.

The Reporters’ statement of tbe case: This case was one of those held under advisement upon the question of jurisdiction referred to in Hejiebower’s (ante) and was decided at the same time.

The Reporters’ statement of the case : The single question involved in this case appeared upon the face of the petition and was raised by the demurrer of the defendants. It will be found stated in the opinion of the court.

The Reporters'1 statement of the case: The fact, as fonud by the court upon which the only controversy in this case arose was in these words: “ The balance of said account was not presented to the Treasury Department for payment.”

<p> On the defendants’ Motion. ' </p> <p>The petition sets up a contract and a claim founded thereon coming within the general jurisdiction of the court, and refers to a judgment of the court between the same parties on the same contract.</p> <p>I. "Where a petition refers to a former judgment of the court, rendered in a case between the same parties, and upon the contract now in suit, the court will examine its records to see what has heretofore been done.</p> <p>II. Where a judgment was rendered against a claimant in a former suit because his cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations (Rev. Stat., § 1069], a Congressional suit on the same cause of action is doubly barred by the Revised Statutes (§5 1069,1092, 1093) and by the Bowman Act (§ 3).</p>

The Reporters’, statement of the case: The grounds of the motion appear in the opinion of the court. It was submitted without opposition or argument.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the findings referred to in the opinion of the court: I. In June, 1881, the claimants entered into a contract with the defendants for the repair of a light-ship owned by the defendants.

The Reporters'1 statement of the ease: As was remarked by the court, the only question to be determined iu this ease was whether there had been such an adjudication by a former Postrnaster-G-eueral as would preclude his successor from adjudicating the claim on its merits.

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p>The only objection to a recovery raised by the defense is identical with that disposed of by the Supreme Court in Wallace's Case (116 U. S. R., 398) and by this court in the preceding cases of Bryan and Ravesies.</p> <p>Tho legal questions in this case are identical with those determined in Wallace’s Case (116 U. S. R., 398) and in Ravesies’s Case (ante), and are decided by reference to those decisions.</p>

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The facts of the case are fully and clearly set forth in the opinion of the court.

<p>The Reporters' statement of the case:</p> <p>All of the material facts of the case are set forth in the opinion of the court.</p>

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The essential facts upon which the motion was considered will be found in the opinion of the court.

The Reporters' statement of the case: The decision of this court upon the merits wherein judgment was rendered in favor oí the United States and against the claimants for a balance of $53,395.32 will be found in 20 O. Cls. B., 241, 250. The claimants’ motion for a new trial, referred to in the opinion of the court, is not reported because it was submitted and allowed without argument, oral or written, on either side.

<p>The Reporters'* statement of the case:</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

The Reporters' statement of the'case: The facts found by the court complied with every condition imposed by the Disbursing Officers’ Act, and the only question discussed was the question of evidence.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: This ease was heard on demurrer to the petition. It rested entirely upon the Georgia statute of March 18,1869, guaranteeing the bonds of the Brunswick and Albany Railroad, and upon the historical evidence of the time. The statute is quoted in the opinion of the court.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The facts alleged in the petition so far as they are involved in this motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction will be found in the opinion of the court.

The Reporters'1 statement of the ease: The following are the facts as found by the court: I. In the month of June, 1869, B. G-.

<p>The Reporters! statement of the case:</p> <p>The facts were undisputed.</p>

<p>The Reporters’ statement of the case:</p> <p>The facts appear in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p>In 1877 a” Circuit Court makes a rule which requires commissioners to keep a docket of criminal cases. In 1885 a commissioner makes out his first account for docket fees, which is duly approved by the court. In June, 1885, he brings this action.</p> <p>I. The Revised Statutes ($9 237, 257) do not forbid United States commissioners to demand payment at any time of thei? accounts for fees. Those sections merely provide that the fiscal year shall begin on the 1st July, and that annual accounts shall be of the fiscal year.</p> <p>II. The Revised Statutes (5 856) authorize the payment of commissioners’ accounts whenever made out, approved, and presented.</p> <p>I’ll. The Act 2id February, 1875 (18 Stat. L., 333), does not postpone the running of the statute of limitations against commissioners’ accounts until approved by the circuit courts. The purpose of the act is not to fix a time when the fees shall become payable, but to prescribe a mode of authenticating them.</p> <p>IV. A creditor cannot by his own act postpone the time when the statute of limitations will begin to run.</p> <p>V. A claim for a commissioner’s fees is barred by the statute of limitations as to any item in the account rendered more than six years before the filing of the petition.</p>

<p>The Reporters’ statement of the case:</p> <p>The facts were undisputed.</p>

The Reporters’ statement of tbe case: The facts upon which the decision rests will be found stated in the opinion of the court.

The-¡Reporters' statement of the ease: The following are the facts.of this case as found by the court: ■ I. The claimant was commissioned and served in the regular and volunteer Navy as follows: (1)… Held: and when he held them, and whether they were to “ grades having graduated pay. ” when he held them, and credit prior service on the lowest of such commissions.

The Reporters' statement of the case: This is the leading French spoliation case, but at the time when it was brought before the court a number of cases were presented by the various counsel, whose names are given below, and the general question of the Government’s liability, and the general principles more or less applicable to'all of these cases, were discussed at great length.

The Reporters1 statement of the case: The question here was one of statutory construction, and the allegations of the petition, so far as they were deemed material, will be found stated in the opiniou of the court.

The Reporters1 statement of the case: The case, so far as it is determined, turned entirely upon questions of law which were presented by the respective cbunsel and will be found stated in the opinon of the court.

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p>A jnotice of the peace for the District of Columbia is in 1883 designated by the Supreme Court of the District to act as judge of the police court. The statutory compensation is |10 a day, but the amount appropriated by Congress for that fiscal year is insufficient to pay him in full.</p> <p>I.The United States are not liable for the per diem compensation allowed by Revised Statutes District of Columbia (§ § 1046, 1048) to a justice of the peace while discharging the duties of the police judge.</p> <p>II.The District of Columbia is liable for the per diem compensation of a justice of the peace properly discharging the duties of the police judge under Revised Statutes District of Columbia (§ 1048), notwithstanding that a subsequent section (§ 1080) provides that moneys collected upon the judgments of the police court shall be applied to that purpose, and notwithstanding that the appropriation by Con•gress for such per diem is insufficient. ' ■</p> <p>III.The District of Columbia is a municipal corporation having revenues and subject to liabilities distinct from those of the United States under the annual District appropriation acts. The contributions toward its expenses as made by those acts create no privity of contract on the part of the United Statos with the creditors of the District, and, except where Congress have so provided, the United States are not liable for the debts of the District.</p>

The Reporters’ statement of tlie cases : These cases were brought before the court upon the defendants’ demurrers and motions to strike out evidence, the purpose being to abtain a decision of the court upon the various questions of practice, pleading, and evidence set forth in the opinion of the court, as well as upon the rights of insurers and the liability of the Government to them.

The Reporters7 statement of the case: This case was referred by the Secretary of the Treasury under the Revised Statutes, section 1063. It was submitted upon demurrer, and the facts setup in the petition will be found stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>The Reporters1 statement of tbe case:</p> <p>Tbe facts are sufficiently stated in tbe opinion of tbe court.</p>

The Reporters1 statement of the case : The following are the facts as found by the court: I. Claimant enlisted in the United States Marine Corps at the Marine Barracks, Washington, D. C., October 29, 1879, as a private, was assigned to duty with the Marine band at tne time of his enlistment, and remained and performed duty with the band as a ]>rivate from that time until May 1, 1881, when he was rated as a musician.

<p>The Reporters’ statement of the case:</p> <p>The facts set up in the petition will be found in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p> On the defendants’ Demurrer. </p> <p>The counsel of the Government in a civil case, with the approval of the Attorney-General, procures the attendance of witnesses beyond the process of the court by paying their traveling expenses. The Attorney-General orders that he be reimbursed out of the miscellaneous expense fund, but the accounting- officers refuse to pass the account.</p> <p>' 'The Revised Statutes (§ 823), which regulate the lees of witnesses, do not prohibit the Attorney-General from procuring the attendance of witnesses living beyond the process of the court by paying their traveling' expenses out of the miscellaneous expense fund under his control.</p>

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The defendants’ motion was to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, and rested on the allegation in the petition that the suit was to recover the proceeds in the Treasury of captured cotton.

The Deporters’ statement of the ease: The case was heard upon the demurrer of the defendants, and involved only statutory questions, which are stated in the opinion of the court.

The Reporters'' statement of the case: The questions of evidence raised in this case and the facts of the case so far, as they are involved are stated in the opinion of the court.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: This case turned on a single clause of a'written contract and on the attempt of the defendants to change the construction by the introduction of 'parol evidence. The facts are stated sufficiently in the opinion of the court.

The Reporters’ statement, of the case : The following are' the facts so far as they are necessary to present the points decided: I. In 1867, while the bill which subsequently became the Internal Revenue Act, 20bh July, 1868, was in the hands of the Committee on Ways, and Means of the House of Representatives, a subcommittee was given special charge of the tax on whisky' and distilled spirits.

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p>The claimant is appointed a commissioner to examine and report to Congress; on the sale of navy-yards, no salary being designated in the act creating the office. After several payments to him under different appropriation acts, amounting to $6,221, Congress appropriate $3,788' “ for payment in full of expenses and for compensation.” He accepts a. payment out of this appropriation, and then brings this action for a-larger amount. The defendants set up a counter-claim to recover back traveling expenses allowed by the accounting officers on insufficient evidence and in mistake of law.</p> <p>I. If a claim be founded on an implied contract, an appropriation of a. fixed amount “ for payment',in full,” followed by acceptance of a payment out of that appropriation, will preclude the party from seeking, a larger amount.</p> <p>II. Where the accounting officers have jurisdiction of a claim, their adjustment, in the absence of fraud or mistake of fact, cannot be attached after payment and the money be recovered back because of their mistake of law. The distinction between this case and Mc-ElratWs (102 U. S. K., 426) stated.</p>

The Reporters' statement of the case: The case was submitted upon the proofs, but the decision rests upon the allegations of the claimant in his petition, which will be found in the opinion of the court.

The claimants more in the Supreme Court to require the court below to send up the evidence or find specifically on certain requests for findings made by the claimants. The Supreme Court deny the motion upon substantially the grounds set forth in the decision of the court below.