Volume 36 — Court of Claims Reports

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. Albert II. On April 29,1895, the claimant voluntarily relinquished and abandoned this entry without any request or requirement so to do, or without any request or requirement to reduce the acreage therof.

The Reporters' statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The claimant was a letter carrier of the first class in the city of Philadelphia, Pa., on the 30th day of September, 1895, and was receiving a salary of $1,000 a year for his services.

The Reporters! statement of tbe case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The claimant, John C. Hollister, is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the city of Syracuse, State of New York. II.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. That on the 15th of March, 1894, the claimant was appointed assistant paymaster in the United States Navy; that he was promoted to be passed assistant paymaster on the lltb of September, 1895, and that he was promoted to be paymaster on the 2d day of September, 1899,. and now holds a commission as such. II.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. On May 28, 1886, there was entered by Harry Jones, J. L. Cole, Charles L. Weaver, and Sarny Perri, through William Hinds, acting in their behalf under a power of attorney, the NE, i- section 35, township 14 S., range 87 W., of the' sixth principal meridian, as coal entry No. 13, at' Gunni-son, Colo., the sum of $3,200 being paid therefor. II.

The Sejporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts in the case as found by the court: I. July 22, 1890, the claimant, who had been nominated on the llth dajr of that month to be one of the general appraisers of merchandise under act of June 10,1890, chapter 407, which nomination was consented to on the following day by the Senate, was commissioned to be such general appraiser of merchandise, He accepted said office and took the oath required to qualify him to…

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The claimant, S. Brown Allen, was the United States marshal for the western district of… Held: $249.65. (A) In the following items of the petition the defendants were surrendered by the sureties on their bonds during vacation — while court was not in session: Item 2. Case v. Hill. §11. 60 Item 3. Case v. Branscome. . 22. 32 Item 4. Case v. Oak.. 11.60 Item 17.

The Bejoorters’ statement of the case: The facts upon which the defendants’ motion was based will be found stated in the opinion of the court.

The Reporters? statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found dj7 the court: I. The brig North Carolina, Richard West, master, sailed on a commercial voyage from Newbern, in the State of North Carolina, on or about the 27th day of June, 1800, bound for Antigua.

The Reporter^ statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The claimant, an officer of the United States Navy, received the pay of a commander on sea duty, at $3,500 per annum, from December 15, 1896, to June 30,1897, less difference between sea and shore duty from December 23 to 31,1896 (nine days), while absent from his ship under orders of December 15, 1896.

The Reporters’ statement of the case:. The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The claimant is a citizen of the United States, and a body corporate duly incorporated 'under .the laws of the State of W est Virginia. II.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. Under date of June 6, 1898, the claimant addressed a letter to the President, dated at Washington, D. C., applying for an appointment as a field officer in one of the ten regiments of United States Volunteers at that time being enlisted by the Government under the act of Majr 11,1898; and there-. after, June 29, 1898, the claimant was nominated to the Senate by the…

The JReporteri statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The claimant is an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, a chief engineer, and was serving as such on the 12th day of December, 1898. II.

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

The Reporters' statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The Pacific Steam Whaling Company is a corporation chartered by the State of California, with its principal office and place of business at San Francisco, Cal., and at Seattle, in the State of Washington. II.

The Rejooi'ters1 statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The claimant herein is a citizen of the United States, residing at Norfolk, in the State of Virginia. II.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. That claimant, John de P. Douw, is a citizen of the United States, and resides at Annapolis, in the State of Maryland. II.

The Reporters' statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. Plaintiff’s testator was, until his death (since beginning this action), an officer of the United States Navy; he was appointed a cadet midshipman June 27, 1877, and subsequently held the following commissions: Ensign, junior grade, from July 1, 1883; ensign, from June 26, 1884; lieutenant, junior grade, from December 26,1893.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The State of Pennsylvania paid to various persons and corporations the sum of $47,129.47 for damages done grounds and buildings used as camps of rendezvous recruiting State troops (while the same were being enrolled, subsisted, clothed, supplied, armed, and equipped to suppress the insurrection against the United States, which troops were afterwards mustered into the…

The Reporter’s statement of tbe case: The following- are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. That Patrick H. McLaughlin, of… Held: we believe it is fair to assume that he would not have remained' for such long periods of time in charge of important works, nor would he nave been appointed successively to so many responsible positions, if he had not at least enjoyed an excellent, widespread reputation. “We-can personally testify that we believe, on the part of Mr.…

The Reporters' statement of the case: The facts upon which this case is founded are set forth in the opinion of the court:

The Reporter''s statement of the case: The facts upon which this case is founded are set forth in the opinion of the court.

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

The Reporters' statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. On the 15th day of September, 1888, the Postmaster-General caused to be published an advertisement inviting proposals for the performance of the mail-messenger, transfer, and mail-station service in the city of Philadelphia, on mail route known as No. 9206, for the period from the 1st of J uly, 1889, to the 30th of June, 1893, as shown in Exhibit A of the petition. •II.

The Reporter’s statement of the case: The facts of the case appear at page 26 ante, and the grounds of the present motion in the opinion of the court. 1. Held: there is no fraud. (Henry Wagoner, 27 L. D., 580, and numerous other authorities.) 6.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The allegations of the petition demurred to are sufficiently set forth in the opinion óf the court.

The R&porterd statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: The only evidence of the condemnation of the vessel is an indorsement on the back of the register in the words and figures following, to wit: “Taken by the French and condemned in Cape Francois.” The reasons assigned for the condemnation of the vessel are not proved.

The Reporters' statement of the case: , The letter of the Secretary of State transmitting the claim involved in this suit will be found in the opinion of the court. The letter from the State Department referring- the claims here expressly states that they involve controverted questions of law and disputed facts as to the amount of damages sustained if the liability should be shown to exist.

The Reporter's statement of the case: The following are the facts of this case as found by the court: I. The brig Dolphin, Samuel Miller, master, sailed July 5, 1797, on a commercial voyage from Wiscasset, Mass, (now Maine), bound to the W est Indies.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The schooner Betsey, William Wyman, master, sailed on a commercial voyage on or about May 8, 1800, from Boston, Mass., bound for Demerara.

The Reporters' statement of the case: The following are the facts of this case as found by the court: I. The schooner Good Intent, Hazard Powers, master, sailed on a commercial voyage January 14, 1800, from New London, Conn., bound for Martinique.

The Reporters' statement of the case: The'following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The claimant is a commissioned officer of the United States Navy. II.

The Reporters' statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as set forth in the findings of the court: I. At the time of the depredations on the property herein alleged the claimant, Wily P. Allred, was a citizen of the United States, residing at Glencove, Sevier County. Utah.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts of this case as found by the court: I. The ship Rose, William Chase, master, sailed on a commercial voyage from Newburyport, Mass., on the 20th of March, 1799, bound for Surinam, and from thence sailed on the 23d day of July, 1799, bound home for Newburyport.

The M&porters1 statement of the case: The vital question involved in this case was whether the sentence of a court-martial was legal, if the. record failed to-show that the accused had been furnished with a copy of the charges and specifications. A number of other questions were presented and argued by the counsel for the claimant, but the decision, as will be seen, is confined to the principal question.

The Reporten? statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and an officer of the United States Navy, at present assigned to duty at the Naval Home, in the city of Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania. II.

The Reporters' statement of the case: Tbe' following are the facts of this case as found by the court: I.The ship Governor Bowdoin, Daniel Oliver, master, sailed on a commercial voyage on or about July 13, 1797, from Batavia, Java, bound to Boston.

The Reporters’, statement of the case; The following are the facts of this case as found bv the court: I. The claimant, Kelton E. Eowle, enlisted as a surfman in the Life-Saving Service of the United States at Fletchers Neck station, Maine, in 1896, and reenlisted in 1897 and 1898, passing the physical examination for the same on each occasion. His compensation was at the rate of §600 a year. His last term of service was to expire August 1, 1899.

The Reporters' statement of the case : The following are the facts of this case as found, by the court: That the amount heretofore allowed the claimant under a prior reference to the court of said claim, to wit, the sum of $2,860, which was allowed June 4, 1889, was thereafter, on March 3,1891, appropriated for by Congress (26 St'at.-L., 1441, 1453), which sum was thereafter taken and accepted by him and receipted for “ as a full and final discharge ” of said claims so…

The Reporter^ statement of the case. The following are the facts of this case as found by the court: I. The ship Fame, Joseph Brown, master, sailed on or about the 8th day of March, 1797, from Grenada, on a commercial voyage, bound for Portsmouth, N. H. While peacefully pursuing said vojrage she was seized on the high seas on or about the 12th day of March, 1797, by a French vessel purporting to be called Le Pandour, commanded by Captain Gariscan, and carried to Curasao, in…

The Reporter's statement of the case: The following are the facts of this case as found by the court: I. The brig Sea Nymph, George Hastie, master, sailed on or about the 14th day of April, 1Y97, from the port of Jeremie, on a commercial voyage, bound to Cape Nicola Mole, whence she sailed May 14, 1797, bound for Philadelphia, laden with a cargo of sugar and coffee.

The Reporters' statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the-court. I. The ship Amazon, Israel Trask, master, sailed on a commercial voyage on or about the llth day of June, 1800, from Nantasket Roads, the outer harbor of Boston, bound for Cadiz or Malaga.

The Reporters' statement of the case: This case came before the court on an application by the claimant, the master or executive officer of the Nanshan, that the Auditor be instructed that he is entitled to participate in the bounty awarded to the fleet at Manila, under a previous decision of the court.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: This case was submitted originally without argument and decided in favor of the claimants. The defendants now move for a new trial on the jurisdictional question of the deceased claimant’s citizenship at the time when the depredation was committed. The facts, undisputed, will be found in the opinion of the court.

The Reporters' statement of the case: The following are the facts as found by the court: I. That William R. Wood, Peter E. Smith, and Elizabeth E. Wyman, executrix of the last will of Shepherd R. Spruill, deceased, claimants herein, are citizens of the United States, residing in Halifax County, in the State of North Carolina, and have always yielded true allegiance to the United States; that they are the sole owners of the claims hereinafter sued on, never having sold or…

The Reporters' statement of the case: • The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. Under the act to ascertain the amount due the Pottawatomie Indians of Michigan and Indiana, approved March 19,1890 (26 Stat.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The claimant moves for. leave to file an intervening petition, and to amend the findings heretofore made, so as to show that he was the commanding officer of a division of the North Atlantic fleet, and that one of the vessels of his division participated in the engagement off Santiago, July 3, 1898’. As such commanding officer he seeks to recover a share in the bounty heretofore awarded to that vessel, the Ericsson.

The Repórter-i statement of the case: * ■ The facts shown by the evidence in this case are set forth • in the opinion of the court. As the case was not appealable no findings of fact were filed.

<p>The Reporter's statement of the case:</p> <p>The grounds of this motion are set forth in the opinion of the court.</p>

The Rejiorteri statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The claimants herein, Thomas C. Bedford and Emma Bedford his wife, are citizens of the United… Held: however, that the United States already possessed such an easement in said property that it could so use it without compensation. In this case there was no question but that the general title to the lands appropriated was in the plaintiff, and that he suffered damage.

The Reporters' statement of the case: The evidence in this case being wholly documentary and involving an examination of the Treasury accounts, both of the General Government and the State of Pennsylvania, it was referred to an auditor to make and state an account, and came to a hearing upon his report. The material facts involving questions of law fully appear in the opinion of the court.

The Reporters' statement of the case: This case, like the preceding one, was referred to an auditor to make and state an account.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: > Tbe evidence in this case being wholly documentary and involving an examination of tbe Treasury accounts, both of the General Government and the State of Maine, it was referred to an auditor to make and state an account, and came to a hearing upon his report. The material facts involving questions of law fully appear in the opinion of the court.

<p> On the clavmantfs appeal.. </p> <p>The claimant seeks to recover royalty for cartridges manufactured by the Government of a device covered by his patent. He alleges an implied contract under the decision in McKeever’s case. The Government shows that the Ordnance Department manufactured the same kind of cartridges anterior to the patent. The claimant, to show that he was the first inventor, puts in evidence a number of applications for patents'previously filed by him.</p> <p>The court below decides:</p> <p>1. In an action to recover royalty upon implied contract, if the question of priority be raised, the patentee may go into such history of his efforts and achievements in the art as tend to show that he was the first inventor of the thing afterwards patented.</p> <p>2. The claimant’s patent of 1879 for a breech loader cartridge, consisting of a combination of a circular base containing the fulminate, of the anvil over it, and of apertures or vents so arranged that their inner edges nearly coincide with' the wall of the fulminate chamber, is not infringed by the “reloading cartridge” or by the “curp-anvil cartridge" of the Ordnance Department, used in the United States service.</p> <p>3. Where an inventor of a cartridge aimed in 1865 at quick ignition through concentrated fire — i. e., through a central vent in his anvil; and in 1878 sought the same result through diffusion of the fulminate flame — i. e., through two vents at the extreme outer edges of the fulminate chamber, it must be held that the devices are different, and that the earlier one can not be used-to establish priority of invention for the later.</p> <p>4. If in the Hubbell cartridge patent, 1879, the relative jjosition of the vents and the wall of the fulminate chamber is a material part of the invention, the Government cartridges (in which this feature does riot appear) constitute no infringement; and, conversely, if this feature of relative position is not a material part of the invention, the patented device is reduced to a chamber of fulminate in the center of the base, with an anvil over it, having two or more openings; and this device was anticipated by the ordnance officers in cartridges made in 1864.</p>

<p> Petition for Mandamus. </p>

<p> On the defendants Appeal. </p> <p>In 1891, the claimant files a declaration under the preemption laws of his'intention to preempt a' tract of 160 acres. He pays for the land at the rate of $2.50 per acre, without protest or objection. At the time of the payment the act fixing that rate had been repealed and the $1.25 rate reestablished.</p> <p>The suit is brought to recover back one-half the purchase money. Judgment for the claimant under the decision of this court in Healey’s case (29 C. Gis. R., 115) without an opinion being given.</p>

<p> On the claimants Appeal. </p> <p>A local inspector receives notice from the Secretary of the Treasury that he is appointed under the Act August 7, 1882 (22 Stat. L., 346, sec. 2), a special inspector of foreign steam vessels, to serve without additional compensation, in connection with his appointment as local inspector of hulls of steam vessels, the appointment to take effect on taking the oath. He takes the oath and enters upon the discharge of his duties. He is not required to give bond, nor does he offer to give the bond required by law, and he serves over three years, during which time he makes no demand for salary, nor any protest or objection. The Secretary of the Treasury, in his report for 1889, states that these offices are sinecures, and that the services of three offices have been dispensed with, that held by the claimant being one of them. But Congress do not repeal the law until the Act March 1, 1895. (25 Stat. L., 699.)</p> <p>The court below decides:</p> <p>' 1. A conditional appointment confers no title to an office.</p> <p>2. An official oath is an incident to the discharge of the duties imposed and does not in itself constitute him who takes it an officer de jure.</p> <p>3. An officer defacto can not recover the salary of the office.</p> <p>4. Where an office is accepted in connection with the duties of another office under an appointment which states that it carries no compensation and is held for some years without protest, thereby misleading the appointing authority and subsequently salary is demanded, it will be deemed a fraud in fact and in law.</p> <p>5. Acquiescence and waiver are always questions of fact and operate in analogy to estoppel.</p> <p>6. The Government may invoke the doctrines of acquiescence and waiver in claims for salary.</p> <p>7. The Act May 1, 1864 (23 Stat. L., 17), which provides that “hereafter no Department or officer of the United States shall accept voluntary service for the Government,” applies only to employees of the Indian Office.</p>

<p> On the claimants’ Appeal. </p> <p>This was a petition to the Court of Claims by a British subject to recover duties exacted by the collector of the port of San Juan, and paid under protest, upon goods, wares, and merchandise of the growth, produce, or manufacture of the United States between August 12, 1898, and December 5, 1899.</p>

<p> On the defendant's Appeal. </p>