Volume 54 — Court of Claims Reports

The Reporter's statement of the case: The primary consideration is the applicability of the doctrine of res judicata. The United States brought suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington against the present claimant and the surety company for the excess cost of the construction work incurred by the United States in completing the contract work.

The Reporter’s statement of tlie case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The plaintiff is a corporation of the State of West Virginia, and the sole owner of the claim herein sued upon.

The Reporter's statement of the case: The question arises, Is an appeal for abatement of an assessment, made before the actual payment of the tax, sufficient under the statute, or must a further and second appeal be prosecuted after the tax has been actually paid to the Government?

<p> On Mandate of the Súfreme Court. </p> <p>Practice and, procedure; Court rules, interpretation of; requests for findings, when and how made. — Under Supreme Court Rule V concerning appeals from and governing findings of fact in tliis court, and Rules 73 and 74 promulgated by this court, “ the requests required to be submitted by the parties are for the assistance of the court in making up its finding and not for the purpose of obtaining specific rulings on each one separately in the form by them presented. The practice of the court is to give to the requests of the parties the fullest consideration and the most careful scrutiny, and, without finding or ruling upon each one separately, to make up an accurate and connected finding, in its own language, in such way as to coyer each material fact asked for on either side, and to present to the Supreme Court on appeal a clear and concise statement of the case upon which questions of law may be there reviewed.”</p>

The Reporter’s statement of the case: The averments of the petition, to which defendants demur, are sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the court. The Government’s contention specifically is: (1) That the claim is one for the refund of a tax alleged to have been erroneously collected on the ground that the plaintiff did not come within the purview, of the taxing act.

The Reporter's statement of the ease: It appears that the Confederate Government had purchased the cotton in question. A bill of sale had been executed and accepted by the Confederate treasurer with an agreement on the part of the vendor to hold the cotton subject to the order of said treasurer, and it was held subject to such order for almost two years — until the Confederacy ceased to exist.

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p>Acquittance 5y payment to successors. — A delegation created by resolution of ttie Choctaw Nation of Indians, with provision for succession, held a continuing body represented by last appointees as successors, payment to whom was an acquittance of indebtedness of the nation to the delegation. For other questions considered, see opinion.</p>

The Reporter's statement of the case: The obvious intent of the act of May 13, 1908, 35 Stat., 128, when read in its natural sense, is clear. Held: p. 297: “An officer serving as chief of a bureau, who is a rear admiral in fact, or is m the next lower grade (viz, captain), if he were retired during his incumbency of the bureau headship, would be retired with the rank, pay, and title of rear admiral/’ This construction agrees also with that placed by this court upon the law…

The Reporter's statement of the case: Under the provisions of the acts of March 3,1901, 31 Stat., 1108, and June 16,1906, 34 Stat., 296, Pear Admiral Tappan was carried in all grades as an additional number, subject to be promoted along with the officer next above him in the regular 18 numbers of rear admirals.

The Reporteras statement of the case: In brief, section 30 of the act of July 24, 1897, 30 Stat., 211, provides that a drawback will be allowed “ equal * * * to the duties paid on the materials used.” The “ materials used ” was not the Sumatra wrapper tobacco unstemmed which was imported under a duty of $1.85 per pound.

<p>The Reporter's statement of the case:</p> <p>The facts of these cases are sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the court.</p>

The Reporter's statement of the case: After considering various propositions affecting the jurisdictional aspects of the case and holding that this court does not possess jurisdiction of claims… Held: nevertheless, that this tribunal has jurisdiction of claims based on contracts originally made with a former sovereign of ceded territory and assumed by the United States arising after the cession, either expressly or by implication.

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

The Reporter's statement of the case: Plaintiffs, having agreed to do a thing possible to be done, they are not excused or entitled to additional compensation because unforeseen difficulties arose.

The Ref otter’s statement of the case: Before the passage of the Interstate Commerce Law the last carrier of an inter-line shipment was, as a matter of general railroad law, entitled to hold a lien and sue for the total freight charge. 2 Hutchinson on Carriers, 3d Ed., sec. 826, p. 920; 2 Moore on Carriers, 2d Ed., sec. 13, p. 683; New Yorlc Central B. B. Co. v. Weil, 119 N. Y. Suppl., 676, 678.

The Reporter's statement of the case: No protest was necessary in these cases because the evidence shows that it would have been useless. That it would have been unavailing before the accounting officers of the Government clearly appears from the evidence. It is distinctly shown that as early as 1901, in the Qv/incy Bridge Case, 7 Comp.

The Reporter’s statement of the case: This is a claim for repayment under section 2 of the act of June 16, 1880, 21 Stat., 287, and section 1 of the act of March 26, 1908, b at., 48, of the purchase money paid on a canceled coal land entry covering one hundred and sixty acres of the public domain.

The Reporter's statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The plaintiff is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Kentucky, owns and operates a system ox railroads and is a common carrier. Portions of plaintiff’s system of railroads were constructed by the aid of grants of lands made by Congress. II.

The Reporter's statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The plaintiff, the Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Company, is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the States of Mississippi, Louisiana, and Tennessee, and owns and operates, and at the times hereinafter mentioned did own and operate as a common carrier, a system of railways in the States of Mississippi, Louisiana, and Tennessee.

The Reporter’s statement of the case: Plaintiff relies upon the case of United States v. Lynah, 188 U. S., 445, from which it appears that petitioner’s land was damaged or taken as well by the seepage and percolation as by the overflow on its land, and that both causes were treated by the court as a taking under the Constitution. In the case of Williams v. United States, 104 Fed., 50, the damage was caused by the seepage and percolation re-, suiting from a Government work.

The Reporter's statement of the case: This claim arises out of the delay of the War Department in putting into effect the provisions of section 16 of the' national defense act. of June 8, 1916, 89 Stat., 176, giving veterinarians rank as commissioned officers in the Army. For this delay the officers for whom Congress intended the benefit should not be thereby prejudiced.

The Reporter's statement of the case: The question is whether the plaintiff is entitled to the allowances of a field clerk from the date of the passage of the act of August 29, 1916, or from the date of his acceptance of his appointment as field clerk.

Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendants in the court below. On appeal the judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. The Supreme Court decided: