Volume 50 — Court of Claims Reports

The Reporter's statement of the case: The grounds for plaintiff’s motion will be found' stated in the opinion of the court. When a court acts without authority its judgment and orders are regarded as nullities. They form no bar to a remedy sought in opposition to them even prior to reversal. The jurisdiction of any court, exercising authority over a subject, may be inquired into when the proceedings of the former are relied upon.

The Reporter's statement of the case: The facts in this case are the same as the facts found by the court in the Chicago c& Alton case, 49 C. Cls., 463.

The Reporter’s statement of the case: The grounds for the defendants’ motion are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

The Reporter's statement of the case: The first sentence of section 148 of the Judicial Code is as follows: “ When any claim or matter is pending in any of the executive departments which involves controverted questions of fact or law, the head of such department may transmit the same, with the vouchers, papers, documents and proofs pertaining thereto, to the Court of Claims, and the same shall be there proceeded in under such rules as the court may adopt.” This is a part of…

The Reporter's statement of the case: The facts as found by the court are sufficiently stated in the opinion. A right, question, or fact determined in a former suit between parties or privies can not again be raised.

The Reporter's statement of the case: The following bill was referred to the court by resolution of the United States Senate March 2, 1907, under the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887: “ [S. 374, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] “A BILL For the relief of T. L. Love. “Be it enacted, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay,…

The Reporter’’s statement of the case: The plaintiff is the administrator of the estate of Joseph A. Harvey, deceased, late of Lowndes County, Miss. On April 22,1863, said Joseph A. Harvey sold to the Confederate States of America 11 bales of cotton and received therefor bonds of the said Confederate States to the face value of $10,010 and executed a bill of sale for the same.

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p>Under section 3163,'Revisecl Statutes, authorizing employment in the Internal Revenue Service and the rules and regulations pertaining thereto, and the act of August 15,1876,19 Stat. L., 152, a storekeeper-gauger may be suspended without pay.</p>

<p>The Reporter's statement of the case:</p>

The Reporter's statement of the case: The claim in this case was disallowed by the Comptroller of the Treasury on the ground that the travel was for the purpose of taking leave of absence. The decision of this court in Perrimond, v. United States, 19 C. Cls., 509, 511, is referred to in support of this ruling. The statute regulating mileage in the Navy is the act of March 3,1901, 31 Sta.

The Reporters statement of the case: As matter of law, the delay caused by other contractors is attributable to the United States, even though not directly caused by it. As the Government was its own contractor, it is, of course, responsible for the delays amounting to a breach of its contract which one contractor may have caused another. Cotton v. TJ. /$., 38 C. Cls., 536; Hyde v. TJ. 3., 38 C. Cls., 649. In the case of Jefferson Hotel Company v. Brumbaugh, 168 Fed.

The Reporter's statement of the case: Prior to the act in question the United States could not be sued for use of a patented invention except where such use arose upon a contract, express or implied. Belknap v. Sehild, 161 U. S., 10, 16, 17; Schillinger v. United States, 155 U. S., 163; Grosser v. Krupp, 224 U. S., 290. The patent is before the court, being made part of the bill. Fowler v. City of New York, 121 Fed. Rep., 747; 58 C. C. A., 113.

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p>The plaintiff was a clerk of the United States District and Circuit Courts for the Southern District of Georgia, and this suit is to recover certain fees and emoluments alleged to have been earned by him as the clerk of said courts during the years 1906 to 1912, inclusive.</p> <p>I. Where the regulations of the Department of Justice state that clerks of courts can not employ, at the expense of the United States, assistants without the permission of the Attorney General, such clerks can not under the law be reimbursed for the compensations paid assistants whose employment was not authorized by the Attorney General.</p> <p>II. Where a clerk of a United States district court has received the maximum compensation allowed by law he is not entitled to additional fees or per diems for attendance at court in receiving and referring petitions to referees in involuntary bankruptcy cases.</p>

<p>The Reporter’s statement:</p>

The Reporter's statement of the case: The court is asked to declare the assessment of liquidated damages, against the claimant, invalid and improper, for the following reasons: 1. Because the provisions of the contract for the payment of liquidated damages was waived or made inoperative by the act of the Government’s representative, Subinspector Mowry, in fixing a wrong grade for the floor of the treatment room.

The- Reporter’s statement of the case: The purpose of the motion and grounds therefor will be found sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>The Reporter’s statement of the case:</p>

The Reporter's statement of the case: As citizens of the United States have the right to bring and maintain actions against Germany in the courts of that Empire, the petitioner is entitled to bring and maintain this action in this court. Brown's case, 5 G. Cls., 571, 575, 578; Brown'? case, 6 C. Cls., 171, 192, 193.

<p>The Reporter’s statement of the case:</p>

The Reporter’s statement of the case: A time limitation in a contract may, and often is, in cases with the Government, waived with the assent of both parties, but each and all of the other provisions of the contract remain in full force. Gleason v. United States, 33 Ct. Cls., 65-86; Pigeords case, 27 Ct. Cls., 167, 175.

<p>The Reporter’s statement of the case:</p>

<p>The Reporter's statement of the case:</p>

<p>The Reporter's statement of the case:</p>

The Reporter’s statement of the case: In the case of Boardman v. Lessees, etc., the Supreme Court, speaking through Mr. Justice McLean, and construing a patent for land, said: “ The… Held: “ The Government is not bound by the act or declaration of its agent, unless it manifestly appears that he acted within the scope of his authority, or was employed in his capacity as a public agent to do the act or make the declaration for it.” Whiteside v. United States, 93 U. S., 247.

The Reporter's statement of the case: It is the contention of claimant that the office of surveyor general of Louisiana did not cease until its records were turned over to the State of Louisiana on June B0, 1910; that he remained the surveyor general of Louisiana until that office actually ceased; that the action of the Commissioner of the General Land Office and the Secretary of the Interior in preventing him from exercising its prerogatives and performing its duties after…

.The Reporter's statement of the case: The claimant, then a warrant officer in the Navy of the grade of machinist, with more than six years’ service in said grade, became entitled to promotion to chief machinist upon the enactment of the act of March 3, 1909. 35 Stat. L., 771.

The Reporter’s statement of the case: The question in this case is, Was the claimant “ appointed to the Navy from civil life”? He entered the Naval Academy as a midshipman in 1908. During his course at the Naval Academy an examination by the permanent medical board disclosed that he had a defect of hearing, which was regarded as sufficient to disqualify him from continuing in the naval service.

The Reporter's statement of the case: By section 3758 Revised Statutes the Senate was given the power to elect a “ Congressional Printer.” That section was amended by the act of June 20,1874, 18 Stat.

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p>The plaintiff, a medical officer in the Navy, seeks in this suit to recover increased pay and certain commutations while in the performance of duty in Alaska, having been assigned to duty there by the Secretary in pursuance of the requirements of the act of August 22, 1912, 37 Stat. L., 338.</p> <p>I. Service in Alaska is “ shore duty beyond the continental limits of the United States,” and an officer performing service there is entitled to the increased pay provided for such service under the act of May 13, 1908, 37 Stat. L., 128.</p> <p>II. When an officer serving “beyond the continental limits of the United States” has all his actual and necessary expenses paid by the United States while so serving he is not entitled to commutation of quarters, heat, and light during the period of said service.</p>

<p>The Reporter's statement of the case:</p>

<p>The Reporter's statement of the case:</p>

The Reporter's statement of tbe case: It is admitted that claimant received his final payment and signed a final receipt without protest, and it appears that no objection was made at any time, that all the payments were received and receipts given without protest, and this suit was not commenced until 1912, the payment having been made in June, 1910.

The Reporter' s statement of the case: The grounds for the defendants’ motions are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

The Reporter’s statement of the case: The grounds for plaintiff’s motion are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

The Reporter's statement of the case: The plaintiff, a lieutenant (junior grade), in the Navy, was entitled to be promoted to the grade of lieutenant, January 1, 1904. He, however, failed in his examination for promotion, and was thereupon suspended from promotion for one year. At the expiration thereof he successfully passed his examination and was commissioned a lieutenant in the Navy from January 1, 1905.

The Reporter's statement of tbe case: The decision of the Secretary of tbe Interior denying claimant’s application for repayment is based entirely upon a question of law, namely, that tbe act of March 26, 1908, does not authorize repayment where an entry is canceled for failure to comply with tbe law. There can, therefore, be no question as to the jurisdiction of this court under the ruling in the case of Robert F. King, 48 C. Cls., 371.

The Reporter’s statement of the case: That independent of the act of March 4, 1913, plaintiff is not entitled to increased pay from October 23, 1907, to Feb-ruarv 21, 1908, has been held by this court. Adee v. The United States, No. 31730, decided November 11,1912. Plaintiff in that case was promoted at the same time and to fill one of the same vacancies as was plaintiff here.

The Reporter's statement of the case: The plaintiff after more than four years’ service as an enlisted man became clerk to the paymaster at Mare Island Navy Yard, Cal.; March 17, 1913, and has served in that capacity from that date to the present.

<p> On Plaintiffs Motion. </p> <p>Petition was filed in this case by William J. Askins on March 2, 1892, under the Indian depredation act of March 3, 1891, 26 8tat. L., 851. The case was submitted upon the original petition and proof, and it appearing that William J. Askins was dead the Court remanded the case with a suggestion of the death of the plaintiff and made no further order. Thereupon a motion was made that the case he revived in the name of Francis M. Askins, as administrator of Charles M. Askins, the father of the deceased plaintiff, which motion the court here considers.</p> <p>I. The right of amendment in the Court of Claims has been liberally construed, but an amendment radically changing the party plaintiff by substituting another is not allowable under the well settled rule that a new and sole party plaintiff can not be substituted for the original plaintiff and thereby make a complete change of parties.</p>

The Reporter’s statement of the case: The facts found to be established are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

The Reporter's statement of the case: The facts found to be established are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. As to the law of this case, it will hardly be denied that if the Government by making borings at a point near the site of the work admitted the water to the cofferdam constructed by the claimant, resulting in its wreckage and destruction, the Government is liable in damages for so doing.

The Reporter’s statement of the case: The grounds for the demurrer are stated in the opinion of the court.

The Reporter's statement of the case: The facts found to be established are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

The Reporter's statement of the case: The following announced per curiam will inform the bar with regard to motions to reinstate Indian depredation cases.