Small v. United States

Court of Claims

Small v. United States

33 Ct. Cl. 451, 1898 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 48, 1800 WL 2099

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedMay 23, 1898

DocketCongressional, 1516

StatusPublished

This text of 33 Ct. Cl. 451 (Small v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Small v. United States, 33 Ct. Cl. 451, 1898 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 48, 1800 WL 2099 (cc 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Nott, Ch. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant submitted the claim which is the subject-matter of this suit to the Quartermaster-General upon the ex parte testimony of himself and two witnesses. The Quartermaster-General apparently deemed the evidence insufficient and adopted apparently the report of Deputy Quartermaster-General Henry 0. Hodges, the conclusion of which- is, “I do not think that the claim is proved.” In this court the claimant has called the same persons to testify, and no other witnesses. In this state of the record the defendants have moved to dismiss the case under the decision in Galhoon’s Case (24 G. Gis. B., 414), where it was held that “this court is not authorized to sit in review of the decisions of the Quartermaster-General or the Southern Claims Commission, and when a claimant does not pursue his remedy by new evidence his claim must be dismissed.” The claimant replies to this that testimony taken in this court is iiew evidence.

In one sense the contention of the claimant is sound. The testimony of Avitnesses subjected to oral and cross examination is of a higher character than their ex parte affidavits. But these Congressional cases are of a peculiar character. The parties have had their day in court; an adjudication A\rent against them in the former tribunal; they come into this court now by the grace and favor of Congress, and it must be assumed that they have been sent here to enable them to produce new and better and stronger evidence in support of their demands than was submitted to the Southern Claims Commission or the Quartermaster-General. To call the same witnesses and none other is not, in the opinion of the court, the production of new and better and stronger evidence. But as the point is new, the case will be remanded to the gen[453]*453eral docket with leave to tbe claimant to produce additional evidence during tbe present term.

The court also calls attention to tbe fact that tbe evidence to support the claim for standing timber is insufficient and incompetent to show title to the realty in the claimant under the decision in Stout’s Case (24 C. Cls. R., 348).

the court is that the defendants’ motion be overruled without prejudice to its being renewed at the nest term of the court if the claimant shall in the méanwhile fail to produce new and additional evidence.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Nott, Ch. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant submitted the claim which is the subject-matter of this suit to the Quartermaster-General upon the ex parte testimony of himself and two witnesses. The Quartermaster-General apparently deemed the evidence insufficient and adopted apparently the report of Deputy Quartermaster-General Henry 0. Hodges, the conclusion of which- is, “I do not think that the claim is proved.” In this court the claimant has called the same persons to testify, and no other witnesses. In this state of the record the defendants have moved to dismiss the case under the decision in Galhoon’s Case (24 G. Gis. B., 414), where it was held that “this court is not authorized to sit in review of the decisions of the Quartermaster-General or the Southern Claims Commission, and when a claimant does not pursue his remedy by new evidence his claim must be dismissed.” The claimant replies to this that testimony taken in this court is iiew evidence.

In one sense the contention of the claimant is sound. The testimony of Avitnesses subjected to oral and cross examination is of a higher character than their ex parte affidavits. But these Congressional cases are of a peculiar character. The parties have had their day in court; an adjudication A\rent against them in the former tribunal; they come into this court now by the grace and favor of Congress, and it must be assumed that they have been sent here to enable them to produce new and better and stronger evidence in support of their demands than was submitted to the Southern Claims Commission or the Quartermaster-General. To call the same witnesses and none other is not, in the opinion of the court, the production of new and better and stronger evidence. But as the point is new, the case will be remanded to the gen[453]*453eral docket with leave to tbe claimant to produce additional evidence during tbe present term.

The court also calls attention to tbe fact that tbe evidence to support the claim for standing timber is insufficient and incompetent to show title to the realty in the claimant under the decision in Stout’s Case (24 C. Cls. R., 348).

the court is that the defendants’ motion be overruled without prejudice to its being renewed at the nest term of the court if the claimant shall in the méanwhile fail to produce new and additional evidence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 Ct. Cl. 451, 1898 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 48, 1800 WL 2099, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/small-v-united-states-cc-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack