Volume 24 — Court of Claims Reports

The Reporters’ statement of tbe case: Tbe following are tbe facts of tbis case as found by tbe court: I. Tbe'claimant was consul of tbe United States at Hong-Kong from February, 1879, until July, 1885, and remaimed at bis post until tbe latter date, when be returned to tbe United States. II.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts as found by the court: I. The claimant on the 5th day of June, 1878, was appointed a lieutenant (junior grade) in the United States Navy, and continued to discharge the duties of that position until June 16, 1885, at which last date the Secretary of the Navy, under authority of section 1454 of the Revised Statutes of the United The decision of this case rests solely upon the proper interpretation and meaning…

The Reporters statement of the case: Tbe following are the facts of this case as found by the court: I. In the months of March, April, and May, 1873, John M. Bailey, United States collector of internal revenue, exacted and collected from the claimant several sums of money, amounting in the aggregate to $550,173.60, and paid the same into the Treasury of the United States. II.

The Reporters statement of the case : Tbe grounds upon which the present motion was placed are set forth in the opinion of the court. The facts are set forth in extenso in 23 O. Cls. R., 431, where the case is reported. The following are the findings then filed so far as they relate to the present motion: The Hiram was a duly registered American vessel, built at Derby, Conn., in the year 1796.

The Reporters' statement of the ease: The following are the facts of this case as found by the court: I. Under act of June 18, 1878, Congress authorized the survey of Pearl River, in Mississippi, under the direction of the War Department, with a view to improve its navigation.

The Reporters statement of tbe case: The following are the facts as found by the court: I. The petitioner was appointed a cadet midshipman at the Naval Academy in September, 1887, the said appointment being as follows: “United States oe America, “ Navy Department: “ By the direction of the President of the United States you are appointed to the grade of cadet midshipman in the United States Navy, from the twenty-fourth day of June, 1877. “Given under my hand and seal of the…

The Reporters' statemeut of the case: The following are the facts of this case as found by this court: I. The claimant was the contractor for mail messenger and mail station service on routes Nos. 6771 and 6772, New York City, for and during the contract term from July 1, 1881, to June 30,1885, for the annual compensation of $63,200 on 6771, and $19,704 on 6772, as shown by contracts, the material portions of which are stated in findings vn, viii. II.

The Reporters’ statement of the cáse: The following are the facts as found by the court: General findings relating to the ship and cargo. I. The ship Jane, of Baltimore, sailed from Jamaica for that port on the 20th of July, 1798, in company and under .convoy of the British frigate Roebuck. They kept company with the convoy until the sixth day, when a strong current set to leeward.

The Reporters’ statement of tbe case: Th'is claim was transmitted by tbe Secretary of tbe Treasury at tbe request of tbe First Comptroller on tbe 25tb of May. 1888, for tbe opinion of tbe court upon certain questions wbiob will be found set forth in tbe opinion.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts as found by the court: I. The claimant, on the 31st of December, 1886, was passed assistant paymaster in the Navy, and on the 16th of November, 1886, received the following: II. “ Navy Department, “ Washington, 13th November, 1886. “ Sir : Proceed to City Point, Va., and report to Commander D. W. Mullan on the 30th inst: for duty on board the ‘ Ajax’ and the other monitors off that pi ace, as the relief of…

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts as found by the court: The claimant was a boatswain in the Navy, and as such was attached to and served on the United States receiving ship Franklin, lying at anchor in the navigable waters off Norfolk, Va., from September-16 to Novenber 15,1886. He was not allowed rations during that period nor has he been paid, commutation therefor, but the same has been refused him. In Strong v. The United States (22 O. Cls.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts as found by the court: I; The claimant was a commissioner of the Circuit Court of the United States for the third judicial district of Washington Territory, and there were brought before him, as such, eight Chinese persons, upon separate warrants issued by him, charging them with being found unlawfully within the United States.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The claimant, in October and December, 1882, entered into two contracts with defendants, which are correctly stated in the petition. Amos Stickney, major of engineers, acted for and in behalf of the United States. II. The time for the completion of the first contract was extended to March 1,1883.

The Reporters’ statement of the case : The following are the facts as found by the court: I. The claimant is a corporation organized under the laws of California. II. It owned and operated, during the period covered by the petition, 383.67 miles of road which formerly belonged to the following companies, also organized under the statutes of California,' all which have been consolidated into the present corporation under the laws of said State: Milos. 1.

The Reporters statement of the case : The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. On the 7th day of October, in the year 1864, the following letter of appointment was, by order of the President of the United States, the Senate being then in recess, issued ■and delivered to the plaintiff, Oartlidge: f{ Oapt.

The Reporters’ statement of the case:' This action is brought to recover back money exacted from the owners by the consul at Liverpool and paid into the Treasury. No findings were filed by the court, but the essential facts will be found in the opinion. (1) Section 26 of the act of 1884 is concurrent with and not repellant of section 1059, Revised Statutes; hence latter is not repealed pro tanto.

The Reporters' statement of the case: The following are the facts as found by the court: I. July 8, 1864, the claimant’s testator was commissioned a professor of mathematics in the Navy, to rank from May 21, 1864. II. August 1, 1864, he became sixty-two years of age, and was on that day placed upon the retired list. Notwithstanding such retirement be was continued on active duty on shore until June 30,1873. III.

The Reporters' statement of the case : The following are the facts as found by the court: I. George Howes and Jabez Howes were merchants and co-partners in San Francisco, Cal., under the firm name of George Howes & Co., from 1853 until about September 5,1880, when said firm suspended payment and failed, and has never since resumed business.

The Reporters’ statement of tbe case: Tbe following are tbe facts as found by tbe court: I. Tbe firm of J. C. Irwin & Co., at the time of the occurrences hereinafter set forth, was .composed of Joseph C. Irwin, James T. Thornton, and Ulysses Turner. Ulysses Turner died May 20,1879. The said firm was for many years engaged in freighting across the plains. II.

The Reporters' statement of the case: The following are the facts as found by the court and reported to Congress: I. James Stewart and James Barr were both citizens of the United States, and they did business in Philadelphia under the firm-name of Stewart & Barr. The firm owned the ship J oanna, a merchant vessel of the United States of 284ff tons burden, built in North Carolina in 1796, registered in Philadelphia in 1797, and commanded by Alexander Boggs. II.

The Reporters' statement of the case: This matter was transmitted to the court by the Secretary of War on tbe 25th October, 1887.

The Reporters statement of the case: The following are the facts as found by the court: I. June 24, 1864, the direct-tax commissioners for the State of Tennessee, under the Acts of August 5,1861 (12 Stat., 292), and June 7, 1862 (12 Stat., 422), sold for the non-payment of direct taxes a piece of land in Shelby County of that State, described as lot No. 9, Mosby subdivision, assessed in 1860 to W. F. Dyer, fifth civil district (city of Memphis); and the same was struck off…

The Reporters statement of the case: The following are the facts as found by the court: I. August 12, 1882, the claimant enlisted as a private in the Marine Corps of the United States at Brooklyn, N. Y. October 3,1884, he was promoted to a corporal. September 4,1885, he was reduced to a private. June 4,1887, he was discharged from the Marine Corps at the marine barracks, navy-yard, Washington, D. C. II.

<p> On the claimant’s Motion. </p> <p>This case is decided adversely in part to the claimant (23 C. Cls. R., 29) upon the ground that the preparation of affidavits on which to ground complaints is not a duty of a commissioner. The claimant now produces the statutes of Alabama, which were not brought to the attention of the court on the trial.</p> <p>I. By the code of Alabama (§§ 4256, 4648, etc.) it is the judicial duty of an examining magistrate to prepare affidavits on which to ground a complaint.</p> <p>II. Under the Revised Statutes, § 1014, commissioners must perform their duty agreeably to the usual mode* of process in the State where they act, which entitles a commissioner in Alabama to fees for preparing affidavits for complaints.*</p>

The Reporters’ statement of the case : The claim or matter in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Secretary of the Treasury on the 1st day of May, 1884.

The Reporters’ statement of the ease: The following are the facts of this case as found by the court: I. The claimant was on the 14th day of… Held: “ When the order for his discharge was not received by him until the 29th day of April (order April 26), and as this delay of three days was by no fault of his, and the circumstances were not in his control, but in that of the Government, and is incident to official routine, we think, by the usage of the Department and its…

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts of this case as found by the court: I. The claimant entered the volunteer service of the United States as a second lieutenant August 1,1861, and continued in said service during the war of the rebellion and until the 31st ‘ day of May, 1866, when he was mustered out of said service as lieutenant-colonel of the Eighteenth New York Cavalry. II.

The Reporters statement of the case: The following statement and findings were filed by the court: The claim or matter in the above-entitled case was trans-initted to the court by the Secretary of the Treasury on the 16th day of November, 1888, under the provisions of section 12 of the act of March 3, 1887, chapter 359 (24 Stat. L., 507). The claimants filed their petition November 28, 1888.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts of this case as found by the court: I. The claimant was appointed and commissioned second lieutenant in the Eighth United States Cavalry, March 7,1857, and was promoted to first lieutenant October 9, 1867. “War Department, “ Adjutant-G-eneral’s Oeeice, “ Washington, October 5, 1870. “ I. Under section 11 of the act of Congress approved July 15, 1870, a board to examine officers ‘unfit for the proper discharge…

The Reporters’ statement of tbe case : Tbe following are tbe facts as found by tbe court: I. Letters patent were issued to John J. Scbillinger July 19, T870, for an improvement in laying concrete. Tbe letters patent bear tbe number 105599, and, with tbe specifications forming part thereof, appear as Exhibit A attached to tbe petition filed in this cause March 22, 1887. Afterwards, and on 31 ay 2, 1871, there was are-issue to said Scbillinger of said letters patent.

The Reporters' statement of the case : The following are the facts as found by the court: Plaintiff was appointed a master in the Navy November 30, 1878. He was.appointed a lieutenant October 2, 1885. Giles B. Harber was appointed a master in the Navy July 12,1871, and a lieutenant September 19, 1874.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts as found by the court: I. The claimant enlisted in the Navy September 29, 1883, and on the 2d of December, 1886, was dishonorably discharged at Norfolk, Ya., pursuant to the sentence of a general court-martial.

The Reporters’ statement of fclie case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The claimant entered the military service of the United States as a cadet July 1,181-2, and continued in said service on the active list of the Army until he was retired as hereinafter stated. April 29, 1862, he applied for six months’ leave of absence on account of ill health.

The Reporters’ statement of tbe ease: The following are the facts as found by the court: I. The following commission was executed and delivered to the claimant, Dolores Romero, during a recess of the Senate: “ Grover Cleveland, President of the United States of America, to all to whom these presents shall come, greeting: “Know ye that, reposing special trust and confidence in the integrity, ability, and. discretion of Dolores Romero, of Ocaté, Mora County, New Mexico, I do…

The Reporters’ statement of the case: No findings were filed in this case, but- the facts as established by the evidence are fully set forth in the opinion of the court. This is not a claim “ on an alleged implied contract in the eight-hour law,” but a claim based upon a regulation of the Treasury Department and duly posted in said mint, that the claimants should receive extra pay for extra work over eight hours.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: This Congressional case was submitted on written arguments- and the depositions of witnesses. The value of the proof relied upon by the claimant is stated in the opinion of the court.

The Reporters’ statement of the case. The following are the facts as found by the court: I. The following orders, in the usual manner of transacting business where formal written contracts are not made with railroad companies, were issued by the Post-Office Department in relation to the carrying of mails by the claimant, a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota and operating lines of railway between the points named in said orders.

The Reporters’ statement of the case : The following are the facts as found by the court: I. The claimant has been a commissioner of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota from 1882 to the present time. II.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts as fofind by the court: I. October 14, 1884, plaintiff was appointed a special deputy marshal in the city of Jersey City, iu the State of New Jersey, by the United States marshal; on the same day he took the oath of office. II.

■ The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts as found by the court: I. In the year 1884, and previously, the United States were constructing a dam and locks at Davis Island, on the Ohio Eiver, about 5 miles below Pittsburgh, Pa. The lock was 700 feet in length, near the north bank of the river. The dam commenced 559 feet south of the lock wall and extended about 828 feet south, to Davis Island.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The original case ot this claimant under the Abandoned or Captured Property Act is reported in 10 O. Cls. R., 375. Subsequently, in Goodman’s Case (14 id., 375), upon some newly discovered records of the Treasury Department, it was determined that the act was intended to and did extend to all property captured the proceeds whereof reached the Treasury.

The Reporters’ statement of the' case: The following are the facts as found by the court: I. In March, 1885, General Meigs, supervising engineer and architect of the new Pension Building in Washington, advertised for proposals for plastering to be done therein.

The Reporters’ statement of the ease: The following are the facts as found by the court: I. The claimant was United States marshal for the district of Delaware from the 1st day of February, 1880, to the 24th day of July, 1885. II. As marshal, he attended, the Circuit and District Courts wheu in session, during the terms of said courts, nine hundred and five days. III.

The Reporters statement of the ease: The following are the facts as found by the court: ' I. The claimant was a lieutenant in the Navy when, on the 23d of February, 1847, he was ordered to duty at the naval rendezvous, Philadelphia, Pa. He was detached from that duty December 1,1848. II. It does hot appear what was the character of the duty performed by claimant during the period of his service at Philadelphia. III.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts as found by the court : I. Under the provisions of the Direct Tax Act, approved August 5,1861 (12 Stat. L., 292), the State of Georgia was charged on the books of the Treasury Department with $584,367.33, being the amount of tax apportioned to that State. On March 3,1883, and on September 30, 1885, more than $500,000 of that charge remained unpaid. The payment of this tax has never been assumed by the State.

The Beporters’ statement.of the case. The following are the facts as found by the court: I. Charles W. C. Dunnington, the ancestor of the claimants, was, on April 2, 1852, and subsequently up to June 29,1863, seized or well entitled in fee-simple of and to the lot No. 3, in square No. '688, on the plats of the squares and lots of the city of Wasliingtou; with the improvements, buildings, rights, privileges, appurtenances, and hereditaments, containing 5,572 square feet.

The Reporters' statement of the case: This claim was submitted upon the briefs of counsel and the evidence taken by the Quartermaster-General. The nature and defect of the evidence upon which it was so submitted will be found stated in the opinion of the court.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The claim in the above entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 18th day of April, 1884.

The Reporters’ statement of tbe case : The following are the facts of this case as found by the court: I. James A. Semple served as purser in the Navy on board of the U. S. sloop-of-war John Adams, in the prosecution of the war with Mexico, from October 28,1847, to May LO, 1848, when he was detached by order of the Navy Department.

The Reporters' statement of the case : The following are the facts as found by the court: I. On the 12th of October, 1872, the Board of Health of the District of Columbia adopted the following resolution: “Resolved, That the Board of Health accept the proposition of Wm.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts as found by the court: I. The claimant was duly appointed an Indian agent by commission, of which the following is a copy : “ Ulysses S. Grant, President of the United States of America, to all to whom these presents shall come, greeting : “ Know ye that, reposing special trust and confidence in the integrity, diligence, and discretion of O. G. Belknap, of California, I have nominated and, by and with the…

The Reporters statement of tbe case: No findings were filed in this case, but tbe facts appear in tbe opinion of tbe court. This precise question has been decided by the Attorney-General in an able opinion, rendered in 1880 (16 Ops. Att. Gen., ; 414). In principle it is also the sanie question that was decided by the Supreme Court in Hunt v. United States (8 C. 01.-.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The facts and history of this case are fully set forth in the opinion of the court. The title of the swords at the time they were seized in 1862 must be determined by the law of Louisiana, as at that time the parties in interest were citizens of and residents in that látate, and it was the place where the property was situated, and the jurisdiction within which all contracts affecting the title were made.

The Reporters statement of the case. The following are the facts as found by the court: I. At the time Alaska was ceded by Russia to the United States there was standing on a certain lot adjacent to the public wharf, in the town of Sitka, a building, constructed of' hewn logs, 118 feet in length and 50 feet in width. The land upon which this building stood (as was conceded on the trial) belonged to Russia, and was thus embraced in the cession to the United States.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts as found by the court in the case of Morgan: I. The claimant, J. Willard Morgan, was a commissioner of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey from May 2, 1881, to and including December 19, 1885. II.

- The Reporters’ statement of tbe case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The claimant enlisted in the Army December 6,1881, at Chicago, Ill., and was assigned to Company I, Twentieth Infantry. He was successively promoted corporal, sergeant, and first sergeant.

The Exporter’$ statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: The claimant’s case is connected with and dependent upon many of the facts upon which was founded the action bet ween the same parties in this court No. 6408 (10 C. Cls. R., 519), affirmed on appeal (96 U. S. R., 30).

The Reporter’s statement of the case: '• The following are the facts as found by the court: I.The parties entered into a written contract, a copy of which is annexed to and forms part of the petition.

The Reporteras statement of the case: The following are the facts as found by the court: I. In the years 1881 and 1882 the claimant was an Indian trader at Willow Branch, Wood Mountain, in the Northwest Territory of Canada, and resided at said place. II.

The Reporter’s statement of the case: The single question in this case turns upon the proper construction to be given to the act August 5, 1882, which will be found quoted in extenso in the opinion of the court.