Volume 22 — Court of Claims Reports

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The cases now argued and submitted are the same as those determined at the last term (21 C. Ols. Held: ‘ I am of the opinion t hat the sentence of condemnation was conclusive evidence of the commission of the offense for which the vessel was condemned.’ In 6 Mass.

The Reporters’ statement of the case : The findings in this case are the same, ipissimis verbis, as those in the previous suit upon the same cause of action. They will be found in extenso in 20 C. Cls. R., 18.

The Reporters1 statement of the case : The following are the facts of this case as found by the court: I. By commission dated July 5, 1884 (tbe day of confirmation by the Senate), though not issued until after July 7 of that year, the claimant was duly appointed consul-general at Borne, Italy, and as such was employed at his post of duty and in transit, from August 30,1884, to June 10, 1885, for which he has been paid at the rate of $2,000 a year and no more. II.

The Reporters’ statemeut of the case: The following are the facts found by the court: I. The claimant was an enlisled man of Company F, Fifteenth Begiment Missouri Cavalry Volunteers, and served in said regiment during the late rebellion from November 1, 1863, to July 1,1865. II.

The Reporters’ statement of the case : The following are the facts of the case so far as they are material to the point decided by the court: Claimant was, prior to May 21, 1871, absent without leave two months and thirty days; his pay therefor amounted to $398.75, which he received at the time. For this absence claimant was tried by court-martial and sentenced in June, 1871, to. a reprimand in general orders and to be suspended from rank and pay for three months.

The Reporters' statement of the case: The following are the facts found by the court: “ This case having been heard before the Court of Claims, the court, upon the'evidence, finds the facts as found in the case of Forbes v. The United States, reported in 17 Court of Claims, page 132.” Can it be held that the Secretary of War, or any one else, can order a thing done, the doing of which creates an obligation, and by his intention defeat the obligation ?

<p> On the defendant’s Motion. </p> <p>The suit is for the use of a patented invention. The defendants give notice under the Patent Act (16 Stat. L., 198) of various matters of defense. The claimant demurs to the notice as if it were a pleading. The defendants move to strike out the demurrer.</p> <p>I.The Patent Act (16 Stat. L., 198) provides that the defendant in a suit for infringement, “having given notice in writing to the plaintiff or Ms attorney thirty days before, may prove ” certain special defenses. A demurrer will not lie to such a notice.</p> <p>II.A motion to strike from the files of the court is the only method by which a defective or improper demurrer can be reached.</p> <p>III.A demurrer will not lie to a notice under the general issue. The rules of pleading at common law, and in States where a notice may be used instead of a plea, stated.</p> <p>The Reporters’ statement of the case:</p> <p>The object of the demurrer was to obviate the necessity and expense of taking testimony, by testing the special defenses set np in the notice.</p>

The Reporters’ statement of the case: • The facts set up in the petition and otherwise appearing on the argument are set forth in the opinion of the court.

The Reporters’ statement of tlie case: The following are the facts of this case as found by the court: I. On the 15th day of November, A. D. 1871, the claimant, J. M. T. Gleeson, was appointed a railway post-office head clerk, at a salary of $1,400 per annum. II. That claimant served in said capacity of railway post-office head clerk until May 23,1883. III.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The grounds of the motion are repeated in the opinion of the court: The Constitution provides, in section 2,… Held: “That, although the Constitution vests in the Supreme Court an original jurisdiction in cases like the present, it does not preclude the legislature from exercising the power of vesting a concurrent jurisdiction in such inferior courts as might by law be established.” The court in that case had such concurrent jurisdiction.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The grounds of the motion will be found in the opinion of the court. The following fact, which did not appear on the face of the petition, was introduced by stipulation: That Armistead Burwell left the State of Mississippi and the Confederate territory and came within the Union lines in the early summer of 1861, and did not return within the enemy’s territory until after the seizure of the sugar, if at all.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts of this case as found by the court r I. Franklin Travis was appointed collector of internal revenue for the seventh collection district of Tennessee, under an act entitled “An act to provide internal revenue to support the Government, to pay interest on the public debt, and for other purposes” (13 Stat.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts found by the court: I. The petitioners herein embrace all the devisees under the will of the late Daniel Carroll of Duddington, and the other parties named as petitioners embrace all the other parties in interest under said will as heirs or assigns. And the entire estate in the real property herein described, to wit, square No. 736, in the city of Washington, belong to the parties named as claimants. II.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The grounds of the motion are stated in the opinion of the court. 1. The Committee of the Senate on Claims concluded that the agreement was valid, and so reported on March 2,1866. Two Committees of the Senate on Military Affairs reached the same conclusion, and so reported at subsequent dates. The claimant asserted it by bringing his suit in 1871 in this court for damages, on account of the very breach now complained of.

The Reporters' statement of the case: This case was tried at the December term, 1879, and is reported in 15 C. Gis. B., 514. A motion for a new trial was made at the same term, and has been pending since. 'The purpose of this motion was to establish the fact that Col. Brands Taylor, of the Albemarle Guards, continued in the service of the Continental Congress after the disbandment of his command in June, 1781, until the end of the war.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts of this case as found by the court: I. The claimant, William E. Singleton, was clerk of the United States District and Circuit Courts for the eastern district of Texas from the 1st day of July, 1885, to the 31st day of October, 1885.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts found by the court so far as they relate to the decision rendered : The claimant is a chemist by profession and was, at the time the claim occurred, to wit, during the year 1881, the chemist of the Department of Agriculture, receiving a salary of $1,900 per annum.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The facts alleged in this case, the sufficiency of which was raised'by demurrer, are set forth in the opinion of the court.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are tbe facts as found by the court: I. The claimant was, on the 3d of March, 1883, and still is, a paymaster in the Navy.

The Reporters’ statment of the case: The following are the material allegations of the petition so far as it relates to the question of jurisdiction: That on the 5th day of November, 1862, the military lines of the United.

The Reporters1 statement of the case: The following are the advertisement, contract, and certificate constituting the principal facts of the case and referred to in the opinion of the court: Advertisement. “ 46118.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The case was submitted by counsel upon the evidence without argument. The facts so far as they are found by the court are stated in the opinion.

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

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following facts were found by the court: I. May 10,1878, the Postmaster-General issued the following’ advertisement, with accompanying instructions : “ Post-Office Department, “ Washington, May 10, 1878. “ Proposals will be received at the contract office of this Department until 3 p. m. of July 20,1878, for conveying the mails of the United States on the routes and by the schedules of departures and arrivals herein specified in the…

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The controversy in this case was chiefly one of fact, and rested upon the counter-claim of the Government.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following is the motion of the defendants: And now comes the Attorney-General, on behalf of the United States, and asks that petition of claimant be dismissed. First, because no legal cause of action against defendant is presented by said petition. Second, because any claim against the defendant as shown in said petition is barred by the statute of limitations. Eobert A. Howard, Assistant Attorney-General.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case, as found by the court: I. The claimant was United States district attorney for the northern district of New York from March 4,1879, to October 27.1886. II. George B. Wellington and W. V. S. Woodward were assistant United States attorneys for said district from January 1.1886, to June 30,1886, having been appointed by the Attorney-General under section 363 of the Revised Statutes.

The Reporters7 statement of the case: In this case the accounting officers, recognizing the fact that the acting paymaster had come to Washington and filed his accounts pursuant to an express order of the Secretary of the Navy, had allowed him pay till that time. What he sought to recover was pay until his appointment was revoked or he was discharged by the Navy- Department. The material allegations of the petition will be found in the opinion of the court.

The Reporten3 statement of tbe case: ■ Tbe transmission of tins claim of tbe Cbickasaw Nation against tbe United States, founded on treaty-obligations, will be found set forth in finding II. The Nation appeared by counsel, and filed a petition verified by their Governor. It did not, however, appear that any legislative authority on the part of the Nation sanctioned this litigation.

The claimants carry mail matter beyond the terminus of their own route to Elmira, a place within the route of the Erie Railway Company, that company receiving pay therefor, the Post-Office Department having no knowledge of the fact until September 22, 1879. The Department then asks for information with the view to extending the claimant’s mail route to Elmira, but suggests letting the matter rest until the end of the present contract term.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts as found by the court: I. April 5, 1879, claimant was appointed by the National Board of Health the chief clerk of that Board, with compensation at the rate of $100 per month, dating from April 3, 1879. June 5,1879, he was nominated by the Board to the Secretary of the Treasury as disbursing clerk of the Board.

The Reporters'1 statement of tbe case : Tbe following are tbe facts of tbis case as found by tbe court. I. That tbe amount found by tbe Commissioner of tbe General Land Office June 30,1885, to be due tbe State of Louisiana from the United States on account of indemnity for swamp lands purchased by individuals within said State prior to March 3,1857, is $23,855.04. (9 Stat. L., 510; 10 id., 634; 11 id., 251.) II.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The only allegation of the petition involved in the decision1 will be found stated in the opinion of the court. The question in this case is as to whether a paymaster’s-clerk is an officer in the Navy. The case of Hendee, lately decided by this court, is not conclusive on this point. It is decided in that case that a paymaster’s clerk is an officer of the Navy within the meaning of the Act of March 3, 1883 (22 Stat.

The Reporters1 statement of the case: In the case of Philbrick an opinion was read in the Court of Claims, but was not filed, and consequently the case was not reported. The findings which went to the Supreme Court and upon which the affirmance was based will,be found in the opinion in the present case. The following are facts now found: I. Eobert W. Allen is an officer of the Navy, to wit, a paymaster thereof; and he has served as such since the 1st day of February, 1868.

The Deporters’ statement of the case: The case was argued upon the defendants’ demurrer to the petition. The only questions of law presented are fully set forth in the opinion of the court. Territorial courts are not courts of the United States. (American Ins.

The Reporters' statement of the case: The following are the principal facts found by the court: I. The claimant received a commission as follows: “ Chester A. Arthur, President of the United States of America, to all who shall see these presents, greeting: “Know ye that, reposing special trust and confidence in the wisdom, uprightness, andlearningof WardMcAllister,jr., of California, I have nominated and, by and with the advice and con sent of the Senate, do appoint him to…

The Reporters’ statement of this case: The following are the facts of this case as found by the court: I. The claimant was, on the 13th day of July. 1882, appointed consul of the United States at Turk’s Island in the dominions of Great Britain, in the West Indies, and has ever since held and exercised that office. II.

The Reporters' statement of the case: The following are the facts of this case as found by the court: I. The claimant was, on the 9th day of Jnly, 1870, appointed consul of the United States at Tangier, in the Empire of Morocco (Barbary States), and has ever since held and exercised that office. II. The compensation paid to the claimant was at the rate of $3,000 a year, up to and including June 30, 1882.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The claimant, who had disbursed $72,047.53 for public buildings in Santa Eé, did not bring this suit until after the claim for compensation had been long barred by the statute of limitations and rested his right to a recovery entirely upon the sundry civil appropriation act, 1882. The claim being for less than $3,000, no findings of fact were filed.

The Reporters> statement of the case: This case was first tried at the December term, 1885, and is-reported in 21 C. Ols. B., 479. Subsequently a. motion for a new trial was made by the claimant, which was in fact in the nature of a rehearing. Upon this rehearing the evidence taken in the case of Metcher v. The United States (11 O. Ols. B., 749) was introduced by stipulation.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: This suit was brought under the following private act approved February 26, 1885: “AN ACT for the relief of Joseph M. Cumming, Hamilton J. Miller, and William McRoborts. “Be it enacted, that Joseph M. Gumming, Hamilton J. Miller, and William McRoberts, late copartners in the business of commission merchants and bonded warehousemen in the city of New York, be permitted to sue in the Court of Claims; which court shall pass upon the law and…

The Reporters'1 statement of the case: This case was referred to Alexander A. Hosmer, esq., referee, and was heard upon exceptions to his report. The court disregarded the report, and found the following facts I. The claimant Barnes and defendant (by the Board of Public Works) entered into contracts in writing, duly made and signed, as required by the Act of February 21,1871, chapter 62, section 37 (16 Stat.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: These cases were referred • to Daniel Donovan, esq., referee, and were heard together on exceptions to his report. The court, however, disregarded the report and filed findings of fact. Regulations and extracts from the minutes of the Board of Public Works and certain official letters are set forth in the findings in these cases, but are identical with those set forth in extenso in Finding II in the preceding case of Barnes.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts found by the court: I. On the 7th of July, 1882, the claimant was appointed minister resident and consul-general to Portugal, and as such officer gave bonds, as required by law of consuls-general (Rev. Stat., § 1697). He entered upon the discharge of his duties and continued therein until August 17, 1884, a period of one year eleven months and eleven days, and has been paid at the rate of $5,000 a year only.

The Reporters' statement of the case: The first report to Congress in these cases was made on the first day of the present term, December 6, 188G. The cases reported and the findings sent up will be found in the case of Cushing (ante 1). Those findings and the opinions of this court in Gray’s Case, in Holbrook’s Case, and in Cushing’s Case were likewise published by Congress, and constitute Miscellaneous Document No. 6, H. B., Forty-ninth Congress, second session.

The Reporters' statement of the case: The case was referred to Daniel Donovan, esq., as referee, whowas directed to ascertain the number of yards of paving for which the contractors were entitled to $3.20 a yard under the decision of this court in the leading case on that point, Cranford & Hoffman (20 O. Cls. E., 376).

<p> On the claimant’s Appeal. </p> <p>The court below decides:</p> <p>(3) The doctrine that statutes of limitation do not run as between a trustee and his cesiui que trust is not applicable to a suit founded on the Abandoned or Captured Propa-ty Aot (12 Stab. L., 820). As between the Government and the owner of the fund in the Treasury that relation does not exist.</p>