Volume 3 — Court of Claims Reports

T. S. Ayres was tbe owner of a fine block of buildings in tbe city of Memphis. It was 74 feet front, 148 feet deep, four stories bigb, with an iron front, and cost, before tbe war, the sum of $100,000. It was built in 1860, and in January, 1863, tbe owner rented certain rooms in tbe upper stories, or rather tbe entire upper stories, to tbe United States by a verbal lease, the time to be indefinite, and the amount to be a fair and reasonable rent.

This case comes before the court on original petition of the claimant. Claimant enlisted as a private in company B, 15 th Massachusetts volunteers, on or about July 12, 1861, and was discharged for disability on or about January 5, 1863. This was a regiment raised under the President’s proclamation, May 3, 1861, and General Orders of the War Department, No. 15, May 4, 1861, and No. 25, May 25, 1861.

The petitioners represent that they are holders in good faith, and owners for a valuable consideration by them paid, of drafts or bills of exchange, made by Russel, Majors & Waddell upon John B. Floyd, Secretary of War of the United States, which were accepted by him in his official capacity and in behalf of the United States.

After the claimant had filed his petition, the government had ample time to examine it, and either demur to it or traverse it. It was demurred to ; argued once ; so that the questions involved were well understood. The demurrer could have been withdrawn upon motion, but was adhered to; the case was argued a second time' upon the demurrer. And it was decided against him, and that judgment'yet remains in full force and effect, and has not been appealed from.

On the 24th day of January, 1862, the plaintiffs leased to Lieutenant J. S. Gibbs, 1st artillery, United States army, acting quartermaster, for the use of the United States, the property known as “ Tift’s wharf and warehouse,” in the city of Key West, Florida, at the annual rent of $6,000, payable quarterly. The plaintiffs, before the lease was executed and at the time, were, and still are, the ownera of this property.

The claimant cannot recover because she asserts a claim for extra services rendered by her deceased husband while he was a clerk in the Navy Department and receiving a fixed salary for his services as such.

This is a claim founded upon an express contract in writing, and it is brought into the court by original petition.

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p>A coloi-ed citizen of the United States,, resident at Charleston, and a freeman, buys one bale of upland cotton before the evacuation of the city by the rebels in 1865. It is seized by the United States quartermaster, and sent to New York with other cotton. There it is sold and the proceeds placed in the treasury. The claimant gives other evidence besides his own as to loyalty.</p> <p>There is a presumption that a colored freeman, resident in the insurgent States during the war, gave no voluntary aid or comfort to the rebellion, and this with other evidence of loyalty will be satisfactory to the court under the “captured and abandoned property act.” (32 Stat. L., p. 820.)</p>

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p>A merchant in “the clothing and, shoe business” at Charleston has his business broken up by the war. During the year 1864 he hiys cotton at various times. The last purchase is prior to the fall of Savannah, and in the ordinary course of his business. His chief object is to secure money at the close of the war with which to pay his northern creditors. He proves that he never took an oath of allegiance to the confederacy, that his expressed sentiments were in favor of the United States, that he freed two slaves rather than have them work on confederate fortifications, and that he contributed food and clothing to General Prentiss and other Union prisoners.</p> <p>I. Expressed sentiments of loyalty, as avoidance to take tie confederate oath of allegiance, freeing slaves so that they should not work on confederate fortifi cations, and contributions and kindness shown to Union prisoners, are satisfactory evidences of loyalty.</p> <p>II. The purchase of cotton in Charleston prior to the capture of Savannah, by a loyal merchant in the ordinary course of his business and for an adequate consideration and with the intent of providing for his northern creditors at the close of the war, is valid and the object commendable.</p>

<p> On the 'Proofs. </p> <p>The claimant at the outbreak of the rebellion resides in Savannah; with the intent of leaving the insurrectionary Stales he invests all his property in cotton, which he stores in Savannah. In September, 1862, he goes to Neto York and remains there during the war. On the first trial he gives evidence of loyalty up to the . time of his leaving Savannah, but the court held that such evidence must extend through the entire rebellion, including theperiod of his residing in New York. He noto offers such proof. No opinion is given in the case, except the following findings.</p>

<p> On the 'Proofs. </p> <p> The claimants contract to furnish a suitable ferry-bout for the crossing of the Potomac river, and do so. While she is laden as a ferry-boat the defendants’ quartermaster orders her captain to take three schooners in tow. He does so, but objects that his boat is not competent for such service. In consequence of this service the engine is broken, and the boat obliged to lay up for repairs. The defendants controvert the right of the claimants to recover, both upon the law and the fact. No opinion is rendered other than the following findings. </p>

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p>The claimant, being within the XJnited States lines during the war, holds a permit to btty cotton within the insurrectionary States under the “non-intercourse act,” 13th July, 1861, (12 Stat. L., p. 255.) The cotton so bought is found by United States troops and seized. It is then sold, and the proceeds placed in the treasury under the “captured and abandoned property act."</p> <p>A citizen within the United States lines, who buys cotton during the war. under a permit issued under the “non-intercourse act,” 13th July, 1861, (12 Stat. L., p. 255,)may recover the “residue” of proceeds thereof under the “captured and abandoned property act,” (12 Stat. L., p. 820.)</p>

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p> The widow and administratrix of a colored citizen, resident in Charleston during the war of the rebellion, proves to the satisfaction of the court her oxen loyalty, the loyalty of the decedent and of all the distributees, and the decedent's ownership in the cotton, and her own right as administratrix to the proceeds. </p> <p>The administratrix of a citizen, resident in Charleston during the rebellion, who proves to the satisfaction of the Court of Claims, her own loyalty, the loyalty of the decedent, and of all the distributees of the estate, and also the decedent’s ownership in the cotton, and her own right as administratrix to the proceeds, may recover under the “captured and abandoned property act. (12 Statutes at Large, p. 820.)</p>

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p> The claimant, resident in South Carolina, renders repeated and generous service to Union prisoners, and assists them to escape. He gives, also, negative proof of •' 'loyalty. He lays cotton two years before it falls into the possession of the United States. It is also shown affirmatively that his ownership was bona fide. The proceeds are shown to be in treasury. </p> <p>I. Repeated generous acts of kindness to Union prisoners, and assisting them to escape, accompanied with negative evidence, is good proof of loyalty under the “captured and abandoned property act.” (12 Stat. L., 820.)</p> <p>II. "When the claimant of proceeds under the “captured and abandoned property act,” (12 Stat. L., 820,) shows that he purchased the cotton two years before its capture, and bona fide, it is satisfactory evidence of ownership and right to the proceeds.</p>

<p> On the Tdroofs. </p> <p>A year before the occupation of Charleston by the army of the United States in 1865 a colored citizen buys cotton. On the capture of the city it is seized and subsequently sold and the proceeds placed in the treasury.</p> <p>A colored citizen, resident during the rebellion at Charleston, who purchased cotton more than a year previous to the occupation of the city by the United States forces, is adjudged the owner and entitled to the proceeds thereof under the “captured and abandoned property act.” (12 Stat. L., p. 820.)</p>

<p> On Demurrer. </p> <p>'The claimants as assignees of Coté, bring the action in their own names. The ground of the action is that Coté was the owner of cotton captured at Charleston, subsequent to which he has assigned his property and interest in the cotton and in the proceeds thereof, now in the treasury, to the claimants for the payment of certain debts. The question is, whether a claim under the “ captured and abandoned properly act” (12 Stat. L., p. 820) may be assigned, notwithstanding the act of 26i/t February, 1863, (10 Stat. L., p. 17,) and the act of 29th July, 1846, (9 Stat. L., p. 41.)</p> <p>I. All transfers and assignments of claims against the United States, whether absolute or conditional, whatever be the consideration therefor, and all powers of attorney for receiving payment thereof, are absolutely null and void unless they are executed in the presence of two witnesses ‘ ‘ after the allowance of such claim, the ascertainment of' the amount due, and the issuing of a warrant for the payment thereof,” (act 26th February, 1853,10 Stat. L., p. 17;) and these restrictions of the act of 1853 are not repealed by the provisions of the act 3d March, 1863, (12 Stat. L., p. 765,) reorganizing the Court of Claims.</p> <p>IL An assignment or transfer of a claim arising under the “ captured and abandoned property act, (12 Stat. L., p. 820,) executed before a judgment is recovered, is void under the act 26th February, 1853, (10 Stat. L., p. 17.)</p> <p>III. Captured property after the capture is complete by 24 hours’ undisturbed possession, or by being carried into a place of safety, is divested from the owner and becomes vested in the captor under the act 17th July, 1862, (— Stat. L., p. —O the title vested in the United States conditionally, subject to be defeated by a decree in favor of the owner, but under the “captured and abandoned property act,” (12 Stat. L,, p. 820,) thetitle of the United States is made complete and indefoasible, and there is no resultant interest in the thing as specific property; hence an assignment of captured cotton or the proceeds thereof in the treasury, is simply an assignment of an unsettled pecuniary demand against the United States, and comes under the cases of Sines, 1 C. Cls. R., p. 12, and Pierce, id., p. 270.</p> <p>IV. A statute is not repealed by a subsequent act unless the latter uses apt and appropriate words for that purpose, or unless there is such a direct conflie? and absolute repugnancy between the two that both cannot stand together; hence, where the first statute declares an assignment or transfer of “any claim shall be absolutely null and void, ” and the second merely provides that a claimant in the Court of Claims shall show by affidavit, annexed to his petition, that “ no assignment or transfer of said claim or any part thereof, or any interest therein, has been made except as in said petition stated,” and that “it shall be set forth in the petition that the claimant, and the original and every prior owner thereof, when the claim has been assigned, has at all times borne true allegiance,” &c., the latter act does not, by implication, repeal the clear and positive words of the former.</p>

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p>On the occupation of Richmond in April,. 1865, three hales of cotton cloth belonging to the claimant are captured. The claimant proves that his “sentiments" were loyal to the United States during the war, hut it also appears that he belonged to a company raised for local defence in Richmond, that he served when it was ordered out to oppose the United States troops, and that lie stood guard over United States prisoners.</p> <p>When one professing loyal sentiments to the United States serves as a soldier against the United States in a company enrolled for local defence in Richmond, and stands guard over United States prisoners, and shows no compulsion save a general order that all persons not enrolled as a part of the reserved force be arrested, and offers no excuse except that he ‘ ‘ never volunteered in any military service,” he gives “aid and comfort ” to the rebellion within the meaning of the “captured and abandoned property act.” (12 Stat. L., p. 820.)</p>

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p>The schooner Mannahasset is chartered to the defendants during the rebellion. It is agreed that “ the war risk on the vessel, amounting to $13,000, be assumed by the government.” While off Sabine Pass discharging her cargo to the blockading fleet, she drags her anchors in a gale during the night to within a mile and a half of the shore. Her anchors then hold her and she is safe from the perils of the sea. At daylight she is land-locked with the wind ashore, and unable to beat off. At 7 a. m. the rebel batteries open upon her. A shot cuts away her cable and the schooner goes ashore, where she is boarded and destroyed by the enemy and her captain and crew held as prisoners. ,</p> <p>It is the proximate cause of loss which determines the liability of the insurer, and not the remote. Hence, where the defendants during the war of the rebellion insure in the charter-party of a schooner against the “ war risk,” and she is driven by a gale within range of the enemy’s batteries, hut is then at anchor and safe from the perils of the sea, after which the batteries open upon her and destroy her ground tackle, so that she goes ashore and is captured, the acts of the enemy constitute the proximate cause of the loss and the defendants are liable.</p>

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p>The claimant is noted on the qtiartermasters’ registration book of captured cotton in Charleston, as having concealed “on his premises Sergeant Eli Hddson, company H, 14th Illinois cavalry, who was an escaped piisoner, clothed and fed him from 14i/i October to the day of the evacuation of the city.” ■</p> <p>The fact that the claimant concealed on his premises and fed and clothed an escaped prisoner, from the 14th October till the evacuation of Charleston, in February following, is satisfactory evidence that he never gave aid or comfort to the rebellion.</p>

When this cause was before the court at the last term, a doubt was intimated as to the action of the court in cases where the heirs of a decedent were not known to be loyal, and tbe judgment in favor of an administrator might innre to their benefit. By the laws of Alabama (see Revised Code, p. -,) property acquired by a married woman is held in her own right, and upon her death one-half is distributed to the surviving husband, and the other half to the other heirs.

<p> Ok the Proofs. </p> <p> A quartermaster detains an ice barge and agrees to deliver her at Memphis within ninety days “or pay a fair valuation for the same." The barge is not returned and the claimant proves her market value. </p> <p>Where a quartermaster, with the approval of his commanding general, detains a contractor’s ice barge, but enters into an agreement to deliver her at a certain place within a fixed period ‘ ‘ or pay a fair valuation for the same, ” the government will be liable if the barge be not returned.</p>

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p>The assistant quartermaster at Indianapolis advertises for mules “ to pass inspection at the government stables in that city." ,Twenty-three different parties thereupon present their several lots of mules, which pass inspection, and are accepted and branded by the quartermaster. Thirteen hundred and thirty-four are put into the military service, 3,035 are sent to Louisville. These are reinspected there and rejected as under age and size. The Quartermaster General orders them to be returned to the contractors, and the cost of feed and transportation to be deducted from the contract price. They are sent bach to Indianapolis, but those, if any, sold by the claimants cannot be identified. The claimants offer to receive back their proportion and pay their share of the feed and transportation. But the Quartermaster General orders all to be sent to Washington. There they are again reinspected, and 654 are found defective. All, however, are put into the government service. But $18,148 is deducted from the " gross price, and apportioned among the different contractors.</p> <p>I. Where a government inspector passes mules which manifestly fall below the government standard, ex. g., mules 13 hands high, when the terms of sale prescribe 14, the presumption is that the inspector and seller conspired to defraud.</p> <p>II. When mules sold by the claimant are branded and mingled with other lots by the defendants so that none can be identified, the claimant cannot be held responsible for defective mules found in the mass. And when he offers to receive back with other sellers his proportion of the defective mules, and to pay his share of the defendants’ costs and charges respecting the same, and the defendants refuse to return them, but put them into their military service, they cannot withhold a part of the contract price.</p>

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p>The claimant's cotton is captured at Charleston. He appears on the quartermaster’s “registration book’’ of captured cotton as “a thorough Union man — a poor shoemaker, whose wife carried with her own hands, and walked two and a half miles nearly every day,provisions for the Union prisoners at the race-course; taking bread from her own table and using it, without pay." A loitmess corroborates this statement.</p> <p>An official entry on the quartermaster’s “registration book” of captured cotton, which specially certifies the claimant’s loyalty, and is corroborated by the evidence of a credible witness, is satisfactory evidence that he did not give aid or comfort to the rebellion.</p>

<p> On motion to vacate the order dismissing the petition. </p> <p>The case is pending prior to the war of the rebellion. The claimants reside within the Confederate Stales. In 1864 the case is dismissed for non-prosecution. Nearly three years after the termination of the war the claimants move to vacate the order and restore the case to the docket.</p> <p>I. When a claimant, whose petition hás been dismissed during the war for non pros, while he was within the Confederate States, waits nearly three years before he makes a motion to open the judgment, there is a fatal lack of diligence, and the motion comes too late.</p> <p>II. The power to amend a decree so as to make it conform to'the intention of the court may be exercised at any time while the proceedings are in fieri, but to open, vacate, or setaside a judgment upon a motion made after an intervening term is a rare exception to the general practice.</p>

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p>The claimants offer in writing to sell and deliver at Cairo, Illinois, 150,000 bushels of corn. An assistant quartermaster accepts in writing the offer; with a proviso that no purchases are to he made hy the contractors along the line of a ■ certain railroad, hut at the same time gives the contractors an order in writing for the transportation to Cairo on the same road (then in possession of the government) of corn already purchased hy the contractors. The government retains the entire use of the road; the claimants are thereby prevented from delivering the corn within the time agreed. The quartermaster consents to receive it subsequently, and receives a part; hut afterwards, the war ending suddenly, he refuses to receive a balance of 31,382 bushels.</p> <p>I. An offer in writing to sell and deliver 150,000 bushels of corn at a certain place, accepted with a condition imposed that none of the grain be purchased along the line of the only road leading to the point named, accompanied by an order in favor of the vendors to the government’s superintendent of the road requesting Mm to transport the corn of the vendors already purchased along the line of the road, constitute one transaction and one agreement', being a proposal by the vendors, accepted conditionally by the vendees, and the condition, with a modification, assented to by the vendors.</p> <p>II. An agreement by a quartermaster with contractors that they shall be allowed to transport the grain which he has purchased from them over a railroad controlled by the defendants, may not bind the defendants, but certainly will excuse the contractors, so far as time is concerned, for the non-delivery, should the defendants refuse to let the grain be transported; for it at least makes the delivery within the prescribed time conditional, and dependent upon the use of the road.</p> <p>III. A communication purporting to be a report from an assistant quartermaster to his chief, but dated after the writer has left the military service, is not an official report, and cannot be admitted in evidence.</p>

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p>The claimant charters Ms steamer to a quartermaster at $200 per day, agreeing to keep her “tight, staunch, and strong.” The charter-party receives theapproval of the Quartermaster General, and payments are made on it. On the 31 th July, 3863, an order is made by the Quartermaster General to reduce the compensation to $100 per day from the VJth June prior. The claimant declines this and proposes to take his boat out of the service. Leave is refused. The claimant applies for payment of the $100 per day, but it is refused unless he zoill execute a new charter-party. He refuses to do so. The steamer is kept in the service till, being eaten by worms in southern waters, she sinks and is lost. The quartermasters’ department then pays the claimant at the rate of $300, but compels him to give a receipt “ in full of the above account.” The receipt is in fact given by the agent of the claimant acting under “a power coupled with an interest,” and made expressly “irrevocable.”</p> <p>I. Where a charter-party provides a fixed compensation, the Quartermaster General, in time of war, has no arbitrary power to reduce it, while the vessel is compelled to remain in service against'the request of her owner.</p> <p>II. Where a charter-party covenants that the owner shall keep the vessel “tight, staunch, and strong," and that she shall remain in service as long as required, he cannot recover for her loss, though compelled to keep her in service in southern waters while she is being destroyed by worms.</p> <p>III. A receipt in full where but a part of the debt is paid gains nothing by being given by an agent under ‘‘ a power coupled with an interest ” and ‘ ‘ irrevocable” m terms, even though the power expressly authorize the agent to settle and compromise.</p>

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p> The claimants purchase cotton in Savannah, some at two years, some at six months, and some twelve days before the capture. The last is from one whose loyalty has been established in this court. They shoio that they expended large sums to keep themselves and others out of the confederate service. </p> <p>Evidence that .the claimants bought cotton a long time before its capture, or of one whose loyalty has since been judicially established, is satisfactory proof of ownership under the “captured and abandoned property act.” (Stat. L. p. -.)</p>

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p>A claimant of unquestionable loyalty buys cotton at three cents per pound on the 5th January, 1865, in Charleston, and again on the 25i/i, at Jive cents per pound. He testifies that he did not buy “ to enable parties who were rebels to get it off their hands." Sherman’s march from Savannah began on the 22d January, 1865.</p> <p>A purchase of cotton by an unquestionably loyal man, at Charleston, three days after Sherman’s march from Savannah had begun, is not void under the “ captured and abandoned property act,” (12Stat. L.,p. 820.) when the good faith of the transaction is evidenced by the fact that he paid more than for similar cotton twenty days previously.</p>

This is a suit brought by original petition in this court by the claimant against the United States.

This is an action brought bjj original petition to recover the sum of $7,293 34, being the balance due the claimants upon purchases from them in open market of army supplies. These purchases were made at St. Louis, Missouri, in the months of September and October, 1861, upon the requisitions of Major J. McKinstry, the chief quartermaster of the department, and of Brigadier G-eneral Kobert Allen, his successor.

The petition in this case avers that in the month of March, A. D. 1863, claimant was commissioned a commissary of subsistence, with the rank of captain, in the volunteer army of the United States; that he entered upon the discharge of his duties as such officer, and continued to discharge said duties until the 31st day of December, A. D. 1863, when he was summarily dismissed the service by order of the Secretary of War, issued in the month of September, A. D. 1863; that said…

This is an action brought by George Ohorpenning, in his own right, and as surviving partner of Woodward & Cborpenning, to recover certain allowances to which' he is entitled, under an act of Congress for his relief.

On original petition for compensation for services as United States consul at Algiers. All tlie material facts of the petitioner’s case are succinctly stated in his petition, to which he prays reference. The petitioner offers in evidence his commission as consul, dated March 7, 1854; the letter of the Secretary of State, accepting his resignation of said consulate; the letters of Hon. W. H. Seward, Secretary of State, referred to in his petition.

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p> A colored, citizen in Charleston Imys two hales of cotton about a month before the occupation of the city by the United States forces. It is seized as captured property. His loyalty is shown. </p> <p>A piu-cliase of a small quantity of cotton by a colored citizen of Charleston, about a month before the occupation of the city by the United States forces, is valid under the “ abandoned or captured property act,” (12 March, 1863, 12 Stat. L., p. 820,) his loyalty being shown, and there being no suspicious circumstances of bad faith.</p>

<p> On the Proofs. </p>

These are actions brought under the act of March 12, 1863, for the recovery of proceeds of certain captured property belonging to the plaintiffs. This property consists of two steamboats, the Colonel Stelle and John F. Carr. The John F. Carr was owned by Charles Gearing, and the suit is brought in his name alone. The Colonel Stelle was owned three-fourths by Gearing and one-fourth by James R. Richardson, and the suit is brought by them jointly.

<p> On the 'Proofs. </p> <p> The claimant buys cotton long before the captúrelo/- Charleston. He feeds and clothes Union prisoners. When conscriptedSf&ecretes himself and stays hidden three months. When sewed he jumps fTom a railroad train. Finally he escapes from Charleston and goes within the United States lines till the end of the war. </p> <p>Feeding and clothing Union prisoners, secreting one’s self and jumping from a railroad train to avoid conscription, and fleeing from Charleston and remaining till the end of the war within the United States lines, are strong and satisfactory proofs that the claimant never gave “ aid or comfort ” to the rebellion, within the meaning of the “ abandoned or captured property act.” (12 Stat. L., p. 820.)</p>

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p>An experienced public school teacher in New York is induced to take charge of a public school in Charleston in 1856. She continues to reside and teach in Charleston until after the beginning of the rebellion. She invests her savings-in cotton. At the end of the war she returns permanently to Neio York.</p> <p>Previous residence at the north, professional business in Charleston, the sex of the claimant, her loyal associations and her prompt return to her northern home at the end of the war, are satisfactory proofs that she never gave “ aid. or comfort” to the rebellion within the meaning of the “abandoned, or captured property act." (13 Stat. L., p. 830.)</p>

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p>Tim claimant is an alien, resident in Charleston during the rebellion. Various witnesses “think" and “believe” that he did not give aid or comfort to the rebellion. The defendants show\ that he was a great deal in the country; that he wore a gray suit — ordinarily understood to express sympathy with the rebel army; and that he expressed joy on hearing of Confederate victories.</p> <p>A. claimant who calls witnesses merely to show that they do not know anything against his loyalty or neutrality does not prove to the “ satisfaction ” of the Court of Claims that he never gave “aid or comfort to the rebellion ” within the meaning of the “abandoned or captured property act." (IS Stat. L, p. 820.)</p>

I. This case comes before the court by original petition, and is founded upon an appointment in the army with grade of colonel, given the petitioner by the United States. II. The petitioner was appointed a colonel in what was known as Hancock’s corps, which began its organization under General Orders of the War Department, issued November 28, 1864. The appointment was dated December 24, 1864. General Greer was then residing at Mt. Vernon, where he still resides.

I. That she was tbe owner of tbe 270 bales of cotton, and that sbe was driven from ber plantation, and her cotton wrongfully taken from ber by tbe military and other officers ahd agents of the United States. II.

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p>A British subject residing in Charleston during the rebellion takes out “ protection papers’' from his consul. He does not render allegiance or service to the United States, but remains consistently neutral. After the capture of the city, the military officers of the United States take his cotton from his actual possession. The value thereof was considerably more than the net proceeds in the treasury. His suit is brought under the “Abandoned or captured property act.” (12 Stat. L., p. 820.)</p> <p>I. A claimant seeking relief under the “Abandoned or captured property act” (12 Stat. L., p. 820) for property wrongfully seized and not subject to military capture, is limited to the precise relief which the statute gives. He may have the net proceeds of the cotton actually in the treasury; he cannot recover the full value of the property seized.</p> <p>II. The “Abandoned or captured property act” (12 Stat. L., p. 820) does not require that a claimant shall be a citizen. It allows “any person” to avail himself of the remedy.</p> <p>III. The “Abandoned or captured property act” (12 Stat. L., p. 820) does not require a resident alien to establish positive sympathy or loyalty, but simply to prove that “ he has never given any aid or comfort ” to the rebellion.</p>

The claimant was captain in the volunteer army of the United States on, and continuously for some weeks prior to, March 15, 1865, and was paid as such. On that date an order was issued by General Ord, commanding the army of the James, in which the claimant was serving, dismissing him from the service, subject to the approval of the President. This order was received by the claimant five days thereafter, and was confirmed by the President on the 28tb of same month.

This is an action founded upon four vouchers issued to claimant for army supplies, as follows : One by General McKinstry, chief quartermaster of the department, dated September 20, 1861, for $26,265 60; one dáted October 5, 1861, for $5,040, issued also by General McKin-stry; one dated September 10, 1861, for $1,823 16; and one for $10,596 01, dated September 19, 20, and 27, 1861 — the two latter issued by Captain W. G. Rankin.

This is a case under the act of May 9, 1866, for the relief of disbursing officers from responsibility on account of losses by capture, &c. On the 20th of December, 1862, the post of Holly Springs, Mississippi, an extensive depot’for the whole army, was surprised by the rebel army under Van Dorn, and all the troops, supplies, &e., captured. The claimant will read from the Rebellion Record, vol. 6, p. 278, the. official orders and reports giving the history of the affair.

This is an action brought under the provisions of the act of' Con'gress approved May 9, 1866, for the relief of disbursing officers of the army. The plaintiff was an acting commissary of subsistence under Gen- ' eral Banks, and on the 24th day of May, 1862, the train to which he belonged, with his desk, trunk, &c., was captured by the enemy in Frederick county, Maryland.

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p> Randolph Mott and Edward Padelford, having been joint and equal owners of cotton captured in the city of Savannah, filed their petition, staling “ that they were the owners of said cotton," and ashing for the proceeds. The parties by leave of ' the court amend their petition so as to sever im their prayer for judgment and seek separate relief. The court being equally divided upon the right of Padel-ford to recover, but being agreed as to the loyalty, ownership, and right to the proceeds of Mott, direct a judgment in favor of Mott for half of the net proceeds, and continue the case as regards the co-claimant, Padelford. </p> <p>'Two claimants under the “Abandoned or captured property act," (12 Stat. L., p. 820,) who have filed a joint petition averring that “they were the owners of said cotton," and praying judgment for the net proceeds, will he allowed to sever by amendment; and the court, being fully agreed as to the one and equally divided as to the other, will render judgment in favor of the former, and continue the case as regards the latter.</p>

<p> On the proofs. </p> <p>The, claimant, as administratrix of her deceased husband, shows her own loyalty during the rebellion, and that the decedent, in 1864, escaped from Charleston to the Union fleet, where he gave valuable information. lie also remained voluntarily within the United States lines till his death.</p> <p>Where a man in his lifetime escapes from Charleston on a vessel, and gives useful information to federal officers, and comes within the federal lines, remaining there until his death, his wife, who administers upon his estate, and who was also loyal during the entire rebellion, will recover for cotton purchased by her husband in 1862.</p>

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p> The claimant shows that he gave valuable information to the United States forces, and that he purchased his cotton long before the capture of Savannah. </p> <p>A certificate of a major general commanding a department, stating that he had the means of ascertaining the feelings and conduct of the claimant towards the United States, and that he remained truly loyal during the rebellion, will well sustain the oath of a party who swears for himself that he was faithful to his allegiance, and that he gave useful information to federal officers.</p>

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p>A oyal citizen of Charleston, in July, 18G4, buys cotton of another loyal citizen, in good faith.</p> <p>Where a citizen of Charleston gave aid to federal prisoners and otherwise manifested his fidelity to the United States, purchased cotton of another loyal citizen at a time when the capture of the city was not immediately probable, lie will recover under tire “Abandoned or captured property act.” (IS Stat. L., p. 820.)</p>

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p>A naturalized citizen in Charleston purchases cotton during the years 1862, 1863, and 1864. The cotton is captured by the United States forces, and the proceeds thereof are in the treasury. He shows general character for loyalty and specific acts of aid to United States prisoners.</p> <p>Where a claimant purchased cotton in 1863, 1863, and 1864, there being no suspicious circumstances attending the purchase, and he did not give aid or comfort to rebellion, but secreted and nourished federal prisoners who had escaped, he should recover the proceeds of his cotton, which it is shown are in the treasury.</p>

The claimant seeks to recover the net proceeds of 140 bales of cotton, (138 upland, and 2 of sea-island,) which were captured by the United States forces at Savannah, in the month of December, 1864, and by the military authorities turned over to a treasury agent, sold, and the proceeds paid into the United States treasury.

This suit is for the recovery of the proceeds of 22 bales of cotton taken from petitioner at Charleston, South Carolina, in January, 1865. The petitioner was a foreign subject; did not serve in the confederate service, being exempted therefrom by reason of his foreign papers ; he never rendered aid nor did he abet in the rebellion.

This action is to recover the proceeds of 39 hales of cotton, 36 upland and 3 sea-island, captured at Charleston, South Carolina.

This suit is for the recovery of the proceeds of 16 hales of upland cotton, weighing 6,749 pounds. Mr. Bruning is not a citizen of the United States, (see his testimony,) but was a subject of the King of Hanover, when that monarch reigned. Being a foreigner, he could not he expected to take such interest in our late internecine struggle as would attract observation; but it is clearly shown in the testimony that he never gave any aid or comfort to the late rebellion.

The claimant is a citizen, of Charleston, South Carolina, and his claim is similar to the other causes arising out of the capture of “ the Charleston cotton;” except, that claimant’s cotton was stored on his farm — by water 12 miles, direct six miles from the city, and outside-the fortifications.

This claim is for the recovery of the proceeds of 50 hales of cotton taken at Savannah, in January, 1864. The loyalty of the claimant is proven by J. S. Hays, who testifies that claimant resided at Philadelphia during the rebellion, and was loyal. The title is proven by David Mayer, Aaron Wilbur, and C. B. Wesolowsky.

This is one of the cotton cases from Charleston, South Carolina. The plaintiff claims pay for 75 bales of upland cotton and 53 bales, of sea-island. The return of the Secretary of War certifies to the taking of that number from the plaintiff. No question can be raised as to the seizure; 'it is both proved and admitted. The return of the Secretary of War shows that there were taken— March 17, 1865. 10 bales upland.

The petitioner claims that he is entitled, under the joint resolution of Congress “ giving additional compensation to certain employés in the civil service of the United States,” approved February 28, 1867, to the 20 per centum on his salary of $1,584 per annum, as fixed by law, inasmuch as said resolution provides that “ employés” in certain departments, and in “ the office of the Commissioner of Public Buildings,” shall he allowed “ an additional compensation of 20 per…

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p>The claimant is a laborer on the public grounds in the city of Washington, appointed by the Commissioner of Public fiuildings, at a salary of $900 per annum. Con-gross by the joint resolution allow an additional compensation of 20 per cent, "to civil officers and temporary and all other clerics and employés, male and female, in the office" of the Commissioner. The First Comptroller refuses the additional compensation to the claimant.</p> <p>The joint resolution of 22d February, 1867, (14 Stat. L.,p. 569,) which provides ‘ ‘ that there shall be allowed and paid ” to certain officials in the city of Washington, “ including civil officers and temporary and all other clerics and em-ployés, male and female, in the office of the * * Commissioner of Public Buildings” "an additional compensation of 20 per cent, on their respective salaries," includes the foreman of laborers on the public grounds in the city of Washington, appointed by the Commissioner of Public Buildings. He is an “ employé " "in the office" of the Commissioner within the meaning of the joint resolution.</p>

The petitioner claims that he is entitled, under the joint resolution of Congress “ giving additional compensation to certain employes in the civil service of the United States,” approved February 28, 1867, to the 20 per centum on his salary of $1,080 per annum, as fixed by law, inasmuch as said resolution provides that “ employes ” in certain departments, and in “ the office of the Commissioner of Public Buildings,” shall be allowed “ an additional compensation of 20 per…

<p>The petitioner claims that he is entitled, under the joint resolution of Congress “ giving additional compensation to certain employes in the civil service of the United States,” approved February 28, 1S67, to the 20 per centum on his salary of $864 per annum, as fixed by law, inasmuch as said resolution provides that “ employds ” in certain departments, and in “ the office of the Commissioner of Public Buildings,” shall be allowed “ an additional compensation of 20 per centum on their respective salaries, as fixed by law, for one year and after the 30th day of June, 1866.”</p> <p>The said Kirby, being a laborer in the Capitol, was an employe in the office of the Commissioner of Public Buildings. Application was made to the First Comptroller for the 20 per cent., who decided that the petitioner was not entitled to it under the resolution.</p> <p>There were four laborers employed in the .Capitol.</p> <p>These laborers were regularly appropriated for up to March 2, 1867.</p> <p>The first regular appropriation is in the legislative, &e., appropriation act of March 3, 1863, in the following words, viz :</p> <p>'“For fourlaborers employed by the Commissioner of Public Buildings in the Capitol, (heretofore authorized by appropriation,) $2,400.” (12 Stat. L., p. 750.)</p> <p>The last appropriation of the same sum may be found in 14 Stat. L., p. 459.</p> <p>This sum gives the petitioner $600 per annum, which sum has been regularly increased by congressional legislation to $720 per annum, by adding 20 per cent, thereto, (13 Stat. L., p. 160; 14 Stat. L., p. 207.)</p> <p>Thomas J. Williams, esq., clerk in the office of Commissioner of Public Buildings, producing the register of appointments to office of persons by the Commissioner, swears that Gilman Kirby was appointed a laborer in the Capitol August 1, 1864, and was in office to March 2, 1867, and that he was in the Commissioner’s office every day.</p>

The petitioner claims that he is entitled, under the joint resolution of Congress, “ giving additional compensation to certain employés in the civil service of the United States,” approved February 28, 1867,. to the 20 per centum on his salary of $1,440 per annum, as fixed bylaw, inasmuch as said resolution provides that “ employés ” in certain departments, and in “the office of the Commissioner of Publie Buildings,” shall be allowed “an additional compensation of 20 per…

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p>The claimant, a widow and of English birth, contributes from $18,000 to $20,000’ (Confederate) to the relief of suffering United States prisoners in Charleston. She purchases cotton after the capture of Savannah, and the loyalty of the vendor is wot shown. The case is free from any other suspicion of a fraudulent intent as against the defendants.</p> <p>A purchase of cotton in Charleston, after the fall of Savannah, from, one whose loyalty is not shown, by a woman of unquestionable loyalty, and who had contributed to suffering United States prisoners from$18,000 to $20,000 Con» federate money, held valid and not in fraud of the “ Abandoned or captured property act," (12 Stat. L., p. 820.)</p>

This is an action brought under the act of March 12, 1863, to recover the proceeds of 7 bales of cotton belonging to the plaintiff, seized and taken from her at Charleston, South Carolina, after its evacuation in 18.65. She came from the State of Maine, and had lived in Charleston for fifteen years.

The claim in this case is for- the sum of $12,666 64, the balance-due on the contract made April 25,1861, by Colonel D. D. Tompkins, assistant quartermaster general of the United States, on behalf of the government, with the claimants and their assignors for the charter of' the steamer Cataline.

This cause comes before the court by original petition. The petitioners were owners of 348 bales of cotton at Wilmington, North Carolina, at the time that city was occupied by the Union army, in March, 1865. The cotton was captured by the army, sold, and the proceeds turned into the Treasury Department.

The petitioner brings suit for back pay due him as second lieutenant of the 54th regiment Hew York volunteers. Petitioner entered the millitary service as second lieutenant on the 15th day of November, 1862, and served in that capacity until finally discharged. He was promoted to first lieutenant meanwhile, but was not mustered, and claims nothing by reason of that promotion.

The claimant seeks to recover the proceeds of 186 bales of cotton, which were seized by the United States forces at or near Brownsville, Texas, shipped to New Orleans and sold, and the proceeds of which have been paid into the treasury of the United States. Under the decision of this court, in the case of Margaret Bond v. The United States, the claimant, to recover, must prove— 1. That he is the owner of the property seized. 2. That he is entitled to the proceeds. 3.

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p> A colored man receives from his employer for wages and rations three bales of cotton but a few days before the evacuation of Charleston. The employer is a rebel and has no money wherewith to pay the claimant, except confederate, which the claimant regards as worthless. The transfer is otherwise free from suspicion of an intent to defraud the defendants. </p> <p>A transfer of cotton made & few days before the evacuation of Charleston from a rebel to a colored citizen, being in payment of wages due, and the owner having no other means of paying the claimant, is not per se a fraud against the “Abandoned or captured property act," 12 Stat. L., p. 820.</p>

In June, 1861, the premises in question were leased to the United States for military purposes, for an indefinite period, at the rent of $160 per month, and the premises to be returned in like good condition as when leased, ordinary wear excepted. In 1865, February 13, notice was given the claimants that the United States no longer required the premises, and the rent was paid up to that day.

The petitioner in this case is James Adams, a citizen of the United ■ States, resident of the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia, who filed his original petition in this case, on the 2d… Held: as already stated, that the matter was conclusively settled against, the United States in the first suit.

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p> A colored citizen of Charleston, of unquestionable loyalty, owns three bales of cotton, which are seized by the United States army. Only two bales, as appears by the “ Registration Book” of captured cotton, come to the possession of the treasury ■agents. </p> <p>Where three hales of cotton are captured, hut only two are traced to the possession of the treasury agents, the claimant is limited to the “net proceeds” of the latter in an action under the “ Abandoned or captured property act.” — IS Stat. L., p. 820.</p>

This is an .action brought by original petition to recover the sum of $4,612 50, the balance due upon a contract of charter-party for the use of the brig Edwin H. Fitler, belonging to the claimants,… Held: upon a quartermaster’s contract to furnish wagons which provided for an inspection, that after one inspection another could not be ordered, but the government was bound by its contract, and concluded by the inspection for which it provided.

This claim is founded upon alleged arrears of pay due for the services of the schooner H. S. Lanfair while in the service of the military authorities, under a charter-party, and it is brought into this court by original petition.

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p> The claimant proves that he owned two bales of cotton i?i Charleston at the time of its occupation by the United States forces. The “Registration Booh” of captured cotton shows two bales taken standing in his name. </p> <p>Where a colored citizen of Charleston shows his loyalty, and that he owned two hales of cotton at the time of the occupation of the city by the United States' forces, and the “Registration Booh” of captured cotton shows two bales standing in his name, he will recover the “net proceeds” under the “Abandoned or captured property act,” (12 Stat. L., p. 820.)</p>

<p> On the 'Proofs. </p> <p> The claimant alleges the capture of five hales of cotton in Charleston, hut the proof shows that only four of them came to the possession of the treasury agents. </p> <p>■Where the claimant alleges and shows the loss of five hales of cotton, but the proof sustains only four as coming to the possession of the treasury agents, judg'mont will be for the "net proceeds” of the four bales, under the “Abandoned or captured property act.” (12 Stat. L., p. 820.)</p>

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p>The cotton of a loyal citizen in Mississippi is seized, as abandoned by the army in December, 1862. It is sold and the net proceeds are paid over by the quartermaster to the Treasury Department, and placed in the “ abandoned property fund.” The claimant brings this action to recover them under the “Abandoned or captured property act” of March 12,1863.</p> <p>An action will lie to recover the net proceeds of abandoned property, (they being in the treasury and credited to the “abandoned property fund,”) 'although the property was captured before the “Abandoned or captured property act ” was passed. That act is enlarged and extended by the act of July 2, 1864, (13 Stat, L., p. 375,) taken in connection with the acts of July 13, 1861, (12 Stat. L., p. 255,) and July 17, 1862. — (M., p. 589.)</p>

This cause is founded upon the act of Congress approved March 12, 1863, section 3, and is before the court by original petition. The petitioner was' the owner of 53 bales of cotton, stored in warehouses at Mobile, Alabama. About the 15th day of May, 1865, this cotton was seized by the military authorities at said city, and by them shipped to New York city, where it was subsequently sold, and the proceeds thereof paid into the United States treasury, where they now are.

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p> An unmarried woman, resident in Charleston, invests her savings as a servant in two hales of cotton early in Ike rehellion. After the rebellion she marries the co-claimant? </p> <p>Where an unmarried woman, resident in Charleston, invests her savings as a servant in a small quantity of cotton early in the rebellion, and marries after the rebellion, and her husband is found with her as a co-claimant, judgment will be for the claimants on the proof of her loyalty and right to the net proceeds under the “Abandoned or captured property act," 12 Stat. Xi., p. 820.</p>

This is an action brought by original petition to recover damages for a breach of an express contract between the claimant and the United States.

Tbe plaintiff claims the proceeds of 77 bales of cotton and nine hogsheads of sugar, captured on the Banks expedition up the Bayou Teche, in the State of Louisiana, in the spring of 1863. It was taken by Captain A. B. Long, 52d regiment Massachusetts volunteers, and Lieutenant L. 0. Baily, assistant quartermaster, 22d Maine volunteers, respectively commanding officer and post quartermaster at New Iberia, Louisiana.

<p> On motion of the Court. </p> <p>A phonographic reporter is appointed special commissioner of the court. He proves to be a person of bad character. Subsequently it appears the depositions taken in Charleston and Savannah were not “read over to and signed by the witnesses,” as required by Rule xxviii, but were written out from phonographic notes after the commissioner’s return to Washington, and a loose sheet bearing the signature of the witnesses, previously obtained, was then attached to each. It also appears that the sheets of the deposition are merely fastened together by tin clasps, which any person can open and reclose at pleasure.</p> <p>I. The commission, of a special commissioner of the court will he vacated on the court’s own motion, whenever it appears that he is a person of had character.</p> <p>II. Depositions taken at distant places which were not “ read over to and signed by the witnesses,” as required by Kule xxviii, but which were written out from phonographic notes 'after the commissioner’s return to Washington, and a loose sheet bearing the signature of the witness, previously obtained, attached to each, will be suppressed on the court’s own motion.</p> <p>III. A commissioner to take testimony should spare no pains to return to the court the exact evidence taken. The manner of authenticating and returning the testimony stated. ¡, ,</p>

The claimant was a colonel of volunteers. His regiment was called the 2d Missouri cavalry, otherwise “ Merrill’s horse.” He was in the service as a colonel of volunteers prior to and on the 30th day of March, 1865, and continued in such service until the 14th day of December, 1865, when he was honorably discharged. These facts are fully attested by the report of the Adjutant General on file in the case.

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p>A married woman in Charleston becomes the owner of 28 bales of cotton. To aid Union prisoners she acts as matron of a hospital. Her husband hands her $11,000 to aid the prisoners and she collects more. Their child is hilled by schoolboys for adherence to the loyal principles of his parents.</p> <p>Where the claimants devoted themselves and their means to the care of Union prisoners in the city of Charleston, suffering obloquy and even affliction by the cruelties practiced upon their family because of their fidelity to the Union, it makes a very plain case fora recovery under the “Abandoned or captured property act," 12 Stat. L., p. 820.</p>

This is an action to recover the proceeds of 108 bales of cotton, weighing 52,433 pounds, said cotton having bien captured by the military forces of the United States at Atlanta Georgia, on the 21st day of September, 1864. The proof of the capture is found in the certificates of Captain E. Hade, assistant quartermaster.

This is a suit brought under the provisions of the act of Congress May 9, 1866, (Stat. L., 14 vol., p. 44,) for relief from responsibility. on account of loss of $549 95, stolen from tlie petitioner, without his fault or neglect, on the 2d day of July, 1865, at Yancton, Dakota Territory.

The petition in this case is filed for the recovery of the net proceeds of 68 bales and 22 hags of cotton, taken in January, 1864, by the military authorities of the United States from the claimant’s plantation in Louisiana, and sold by the agents of the Treasury Department. The claimant is a citizen of New York, where he has resided for many years past.

The petitioner contracted with the government for the manufacture and delivery of 5,000 Mann’s patent knapsacks, at $2 85J each. On the 3d of March, 1865, the Secretary of War ordered the Quartermaster General to make the contract. Ori the 14th March, 1865, Brigadier General D. EL Vinton, deputy quartermaster general a»t New York, was instructed to purchase, under contract, of W. D. Mann, patentee, 5,000 knapsacks.

The case now stands before the court on the original petition alone, with all claim for any other property than the “powder ” stricken out. The testimony of Hollins relates to the circumstances attending the destruction of the powder, and the testimony of Harrington and Groves to the title of the powder when destroyed.

The claimant in this case entered into a contract with the Navy Department for the building and equipping a gunboat for the western waters, which was dated May 14,1862. The boat was built, delivered by claimant to, and accepted by, the government, and the contract price therefor, $186,000, was paid.

I. This cause grows out of the non-payment by the Commissary General’s department of certain beef vouchers issued in pursuance of a contract regularly made. The propositions of law involved in this case are neither many nor abstruse. The plainest principles governing contracts will settle all we ask in the case. The contract was made by the proper officer, for a proper purpose, and in a legal manner.

This action is brought under section three of the act of March 12, 1863, to recover the net proceeds of 13 hales of cotton taken from the claimant at Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and sold, and the proceeds paid into the treasury of the United States. These 13 bales of cotton belonged to the claimant, who was not only loyal but was at the time engaged in the military service of the United States.

<p> Appeal from the Court of Claims. </p> <p>The Commissioner of Pensions and: the Secretary of the Interior deny the claimant a land warrant. He brings his action in the Court of Claims ‘ ‘ to establish his right to a warrant.” The Court holds that it has “ original jurisdiction of a case founded upon an application for a land warrant,” and renders a decree directing that a “ military bounty land warrant be made, issued, and delivered to the said Julian Alire by the proper officer.” 1 C. Cls. R., p. 233. It not appearing that the amount in controversy exceeds $3,000, nor that the “ decree will affect a class of cases, ” the record is remanded bach to the Court of Claims and amended.</p> <p>I. The only judgments which the Court of Claims is authorized to render against the government, or over which the Supreme Court has any jurisdiction on appeal, are judgments for money. Neither court possesses authority to decree the recovery of a land warrant. Under the acts constituting the Court of Claims, (24th February, 1855, 10 Stat. L., p. 612; 3d March, 1863, 12 id., p. 765,) the limited power given to render judgment necessarily restrains the general terms and confines the jurisdiction to moneyed demands.</p> <p>II. Where, in an appeal from the Court of Claims to the Supreme Court, it neither appears on the record that the amount in controversy exceeds $3,000, nor that the decree will affect a class of cases, the appeal will be dismissed or the record remanded that the fact may be certified.</p>

<p> Appeal from the Court of Claims. </p>

<p> Appeal from the Court of Claims. </p> <p>The claimant agrees “to furnish all the material and make 221,000 cvhic yards of embankment ” in the Memphis navy yard. The contract contemplates frequent payments, but is silent as to the time and manner of measurement. _4s the work proceeds the defendants insist that the measurements must be from a fixed base, and that the claimant must bear the loss of shrinkage, settling, waste, fyc. The Court of Claims holds, that “in the. silence of a contract for building an embankment as to the manner of making the measurements, the law will conclude that they are to be made in the ordinary way," and that “ measuring from a fixed base may be the ordinary and proper method of estimating an embankment;" and that it rests with the claimant to show that it was not. Also that “where the commandant of a navy yard interferes with a contractor and delays his work," the latter “cannot recover for the interference if he be in default respecting the completion of the contract.” (I C. Cls. R., p. 246.)</p> <p>I. Where a contract declares no penalty for not completing a work by the day specified, nor authorizes the government to forfeit or terminate it, the utmost that can be claimed by the defendants are such damages as they may have sustained. Their officers have no right to interfere with the contractor within a public navy yard by compelling him to take circuitous routes, &e., though he be in default as to the time of completing his work.</p> <p>II. Where a contractor agrees to build an embankment at so much a cubic yard, and there is a settling of the batture on which the embankment is built, the ' measurements of the work should not be from a fixed base, but should include the quantity increased by the settling of the batture.</p> <p>III. Where a contractor agrees to build an entire embankment on dry land, the natural waste and shrinkage must be borne by him; but where no place is mentioned in the contract, and the defendants’ engineers compel him to dump loose earth in running water, then the quantity of earth placed there should be estimated.</p>

<p> Appeal from the Court of Claims. </p> <p>HEAD NOTE.*</p> <p>1. Settled rule of law is tliat the judiciary act does not authorize a suit against the United States in any of the federal courts.</p> <p>2. Parties dissatisfied with the course pursued towards them by the executive officers charged with the fulfilment of contracts, have no other remedy'than by petition to Congress, except in the limited class of cases cognizable in the Court of Claims.</p> <p>3. Jurisdiction cannot be exercised by a circuit court in any case, unless it be conferred by an act of Congress.</p> <p>4. Bight of set-off did not exist at common law, and is everywhere founded upon statutory regulations.</p> <p>5. Persons indebted to the United States are subject to suit, and tfie requirement is that the court, on motion, shall grant judgment at the return term unless the defendant shall, in open court, make oath that he is equitably entitled to credits previously submitted to the accounting officers of the treasury, and which had been by them rejected.</p> <p>6. No claim for a credit can be admitted in a suit between the United States and an individual but such as has been submitted to those officers for examination and been by them disallowed, unless it appears that the defendant, at the time of trial, is in possession of vouchers not before in his power to procure, and that he was prevented from exhibiting the claim for such credit to the proper officers by absence from the United States, or some unavoidable accident.</p> <p>7. Extent of the authority conferred in that section is that the defendant, when sued by the United States, may exhibit his claims for credit if they come within the prescribed conditions, but they can only be admitted as claims for credit and not as demands for judgment.</p> <p>8. He may, if he can, prove such credits to an amount sufficient to discharge the entire claim of the United States, but the provision confers no jurisdiction on the court to render judgment for any excess of credit he may prove over the the claim set forth in the declaration.</p> <p>9. State laws in such a case do not constitute the rule of decision, but the question arises exclusively under the act of Congress, and no local law or usage can have any influence in its determination.</p> <p>10. Set-off may be proved under that regulation to an amount to discharge the the whole claim of the plaintiffs, in which event he will be entitled to judgment that he go thereof without day, but the circuit court possesses no jurisdiction to render judgment for any excess of set-off over the plaintiffs’ claim.</p>