Volume 30 — Court of Claims Reports

The Reporters1 statement of the case: The facts upon which the motion was based will be found set forth in the opinion of the court. The application to discharge the writ was submitted at chambers by the witness in person without argument, but briefs were filed by the witness and by Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Dodge.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts of this case as found by the court: I. The claimant, a naval constructor in the United States Navy, received the following orders: “Navy Department, “ Washington, October 31,1885. “ Sir : Ton are detached from the board of inventory, and you will take charge of the work in completing the steel cruisers Chicago and Boston, at the Delaware River Iron Works, at Chester, Pa., under such general and specific…

The Reporters’ statement of tlie case: The claimant, on the 8th day of August, 1882, was appointed a clerk in the Bureau of Pensions, Department of the Interior, and continued in such Department up to and including the year 1887.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The attorneys for the United States first procured an order for the examination for the claimant. This order the claimant’s attorneys moved to vacate and set aside. The motion was sent to the Law Calendar and fully argued upon the right of the Government to the order first granted. No reason can be conceived why the provisions of section 1080 should be omitted in the Indian depredation cases.

The Reporters’ statement of the ease: The transmittal of the Secretary of the Treasury, pursuant to the Act March 3,1883 (22 Stat. L., 485), will be found in the opinion of the court. Held: to give a sufficient consideration to support a promise, it must be either such as deprived a person to whom the promise was made of the right which he before possessed, or else conferred upon the other party a benefit which he could not otherwise have had. 3.

The Reporters1 statement of the case: The following are the facts as found by the court: I. At the time when the depredations alleged in this case were committed, viz, during the months of January and February, 1859, the defendants the Mohave Indians were not in amity with the United States, and war was then being waged between them and the military forces of the United States. II.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts of this case as found by the court: I. Said deceased entered into a contract… Held: both in this court and in the Supreme Court, that though a city transfer contract provides for new or additional mail-messenger or transfer service in said city, yet the post-office can not compel the contractor to take the mails to another city over the line of another contractor, for delivery there to him, unless there be a…

The Reporters' statement of the ease: This case not being appealable, no findings of fact were filed. The facts, so far as they, are involved in the decision, are stated in the opinion of the court.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: ' The following are the facts of this case as found by the court: I. The claimant is the owner in fee simple of a tract of land known as “Farrars Island,” situated in the county of Henrico aud State of Virginia, containing 670 acres, which be acquired under the last will and testament of his uncle, the late Henry Cos, in the year 1888. II. During the late war a canal, called the “ Dutch Gap.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts in this case as found by the court: I. The claimant, a mate in the United States Navy, was attached to and served on the United States receiving ship Yermont from March 20, 1888, to August 14,1891. II. During his said service he was not allowed a ration nor commutation therefor. III.

The Reporters' statement of the case: There being no appeal in this case, no findings of fact were filed. The Secretary of War has applied a rule of construction to this statute which makes it in many cases useless, and a rule of construction not warranted by the authorities. He takes the statute apart and dissects it, and construes it separately and in sections.

The Reporters’ statement óf tbe case: The following are the facts in this case as found by the court: ' I. The claimant entered into three contracts with the defendant, as set out in the petition. • II. On contract 1, for the delivery of wood at the military station of Fort Shaw, Mont., the claimant delivered 800 cords, all that was required, which at the contract price entitled him to $3,976, no part of which has been paid. III.

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

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The essential facts of this case will be found in the decree which is set forth at the foot of the second opinion, post. Held: the disposition thereof is a matter over which the United States have no control whatever, either as trustee or otherwise.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The facts upon which these cases were dismissed for want of jurisdiction will be found in the opinion of the court.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts of this case as found by the court: I. Prior to the 5th day of August, 1386, the State of Ohio improved the Muskingum Eiver in said State in the construction of dams and locks, and had expended a large amount of money in such construction.

The Reporters1 statement of tbe case: The original decision in this case, from which an appeal was taken by the defendants, will be found in 28 0. 01s. B., 281. The substance of the present application to enlarge the decree will be found in the opinion of the court.

The Reporters’ statement of tbe ease: This is á continuation and conclusion of tbe previous decision (ante, p. 138).

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The claimant has been a lieutenant in the Navy of the United States since 1872. On the 1st of January, 1891, in obedience to an order from the Secretary of the Navy, he reported to Commander A. S. Crowninshield for duty as executive officer on board the St. Mary’s, a sailing vessel owned and employed by the United States.

The Reporters’ statement of tbe case: Tbe following are tbe facts of tbe case as found by tbe court after being amended under a motion. See same case, post: I. Tbe claimant, a citizen of tbeUnited States, was appointed by tbe collector of tbe port of Baltimore a nigbt inspector in tbe customs service at Baltimore in 1882.

The Reporters’ statement of tbe case: As this case was not appealable no finding's of fact were filed by the court, but the essential facts will be found in the opinion.

The Reporters’ statement of tbe ease: Tbe following' are tbe facts of tbe case as found by tbe court: I. Lewis E. Parsons, jr., claimant, of Birmingham, in tbe State of Alabama, on tbe 4th day of February, 1890, after bis nomination and confirmation, was duly appointed, qualified, and commissioned, for tbe term of four years, as attorney for tbe United States for tbe northern district of Alabama, and also to act as such for tbe middle district of Alabama. II.

The Reporters'’ statement of the case: The claim in this case was transmitted to the court by the following resolution of the Senate: “ In the Senate oe the United States, u April 21,1892. “ Resolved, That the claim of George T. Yance and Guy P. Yance, executors of the estate of William L. Yance, deceased, late of Memphis, Tennessee, represented by Senate bill numbered forty, be, and the same is hereby, referred to the Court of Claims, with all the papers in the case, under…

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following is the preamble of the Greek treaty, 1866 (14 Stat. L., p. 785).

The Reporters’ statement of tbe case: The following are the facts of this case as found by the court as amended- by the order of the court November 11,1895: I. The claimant, Richard I. Eskridge, was, from the 1st day of May, 1892, to the 31st day of October, 1894, a captain in the Regular Army of the United States of more than twenty years’ service. II. During said period the following were in force as a part of the Infantry Drill Regulations of the Army: “Paragraph 249.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts of this case as found by the court: I. During’ the year 1892 the claimant… Held: and everything appears to be moving along smoothly. “In order that no question may be raised by tbe defense as to my status, and that I may be able to appear before tbe grand jury, I beg to suggest tbe advisability of my appointment as a special assistant to tbe United States attorney, without compensation, for these cases.” YII.

The Reporters’ statement of tbe case: Tbe ease came before tbe court upon tbe defendant’s demurrer to tbe petition of tbe claimant. Under tbe circumstances it sufficiently appears that commutation for quarters and fuel for enlisted men is not a right incident to tbeir rank, but only conditional and wholly without regard to rank.

The Reporters’ statement of tbe case: Tbe motion for a new trial of tbis cause was overruled, tbe court sustaining tbe objection stated in tbe 'motion, but permitting claimant to amend bis pleadings, and itself amending tbe judgment so as to name tbe Minneconjou Sioux as defendants.

The Reporters'1 statement of the case: The case was submitted by the claimant under the objection of the defendants that the claim was pending in the Treasury and suspended for explanation.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The claimant’s motion and the facts relating to it appear in the opinion of the court.

<p>The Reporters’ statement of tbe case:</p> <p>In this case, wbicb was not appealable, no findings of fact were filed.</p>

The Reporters’ statement of tbe case: Tbe ’following are tbe facts of tbis case as found by tbe court: I. February 19,1887, tbe following was issued as an advertisement': “Sealed proposals for eavtb filling around tbe terrace at tbe base of tbe Washington Monument will be received at tbis office until 12 m. on Thursday, tbe lOtb day of March, 1887,_ and opened immediately thereafter in tbe presence of bidders.' “Specifications and other information may be obtained at tbis…

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts of this case as found by the court: I. The claimant is a citizen of the United States residing at Phoenix, in Maricopa County, in the Territory of Arizona. II. On the 20th July, 1889, the claimant was appointed •consul of the United States at Paso del Norte, Mexico. He qualified as such on the 24th July, 1889, and held the office until August 17,1893. III.

The Reporters’ statement of tbe case: The following are the facts of this case as found by the court: I. The claimant, Jacob Yoes, is a citizen of the United States, residing in the State of Arkansas, and from May 29,1889, to March 3, 1893, was marshal of the United States for the western district of said State, duly appointed, qualified, and acting as such. . II.

The Reporters’ statement of tbe case: Tbe act conferring special jurisdiction upon tbe court of tbis case will be found set forth in tbe opinion.

The Reporters’ statement of tbe case: Tbe motion of tbe defendants to dismiss tbe proceeding of tbe claimant by wbicb be sought to bave this case treated as an allowed claim entitled to priority of consideration and judgment, will be found set forth in tbe opinion of tbe court.

I. In 1780 tbe Six Nations of “New York Indians” consisted of tbe following nations or tribes: Senecas, Cayugas, Onondagas, Oneidas, Tuscaroras, and Mobawks. Tbe Mobawks soon after withdrew to Canada, relinquishing to New York all claim to lands in that State.

The Reporters’ statement of the ease: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. On the 9th day of June, 1875, the defendant entered into a contract with the claimants, which was known and designated as extension of contract No. 762, in which, among other things, it was stipulated and agreed— “First.

The Reporters’ statement of tbe case : The following is the motion made on behalf of the defendants: Now come the defendants and move the court to set aside the judgment rendered in this case, and grant a new trial therein, or render judgment for the defendants, for the reasons; First, that defendants allege that error of law was committed in the conclusion of the court that because claimant performed services in excess of those required by regulation of the Treasury…