-
5 Ct. Cl. 302 Court of Claims December 15, 1869
Milligan, J., delivered the opinion of the court: This action is brought in the name of Charles C. Wentworth; but it is averred in the petition that Matthias Ellis and Joseph *306 Pratt are equal joiut owners with him. in the claim. The amount sought to be
-
5 Ct. Cl. 549 Court of Claims December 15, 1869Not cited
Nott, J., delivered tbe opinion of the court: This is an action brought under th*e “ Abandoned or captured property act’’ to recover the proceeds of nine hundred and seventy-four bales of cotton captured at Savannah; which ];>roceeds, it is alleged, amount to
-
5 Ct. Cl. 598 Court of Claims December 15, 1869Not cited Dissent · Pecicmilligan
Pecic, and Milligan, J., J., dissented: Not being satisfied that the claimant did not give aid or comfort to the rebellion.
-
5 Ct. Cl. 106 Court of Claims December 15, 1869Not cited
Milligan, J., delivered tbe opinion of tbe court: This case was beard with tbe case of Elipbalet Whittlesey, and in principle it is identical witb it, and must be ruled by it. We, therefore, ñnd tbe claimant entitled to recover as follows, viz: Commutation
-
5 Ct. Cl. 610 Court of Claims December 15, 1869
Nott, J., delivered tbe opinion of tbe court: This is an action brought under tbe Abandoned or captured property act, in tbe name of Simeon W. Silverbill, a citizen of Savannah, for tbe use of Samuel Scbiffer, surviving partner of tbe firm of J. Scbiffer & Co
-
6 Ct. Cl. 77 Court of Claims December 15, 1870
Nott, J., delivered tbe opinion of tbe court: These cases are now pending in tbe Supreme Court on appeal. Tbe claimants move for leave to file a replication to a “ special plea” of tbe defendants, nunc pro tuno. Tbe defendants object that tbe record bas gone
-
6 Ct. Cl. 84 Court of Claims December 15, 1870Not cited Dissent · Nott
Nott, J., dissenting: The construction of the court gives no effect to an act of Congress. Congress having passed the private act for the relief of the claimants, with knowledge of the facts, as appears by the reports of their committees, and while the claimants
-
6 Ct. Cl. 123 Court of Claims December 15, 1870
Losing-, J., delivered the opinion of the court: The action is for an alleged, breach of contract in not receiving at Fort Lyon two hundred and forty-one tons of hay, a portion of eight hundred tons contracted for. But the contract is not for an entire quantity
-
6 Ct. Cl. 323 Court of Claims December 15, 1870Cited by 2 Dissent · Nott
Nott, J., dissenting: I dissent from the judgment of the court upon the following grounds: 1. Non-resident aliens have no right to resort to the courts of a country, and come in only by treaty or through international comity. It is a controlling principle that
-
6 Ct. Cl. 171 Court of Claims December 15, 1870Cited by 11 Dissent · Loking
Loking-, J., dissenting: The material facts are, that the claimants in a suit brought by them under the third section of the Act 12th March, 1863, recovered a judgment here on the 13th of April, 1868, for the net proceeds of fifty-two bales of ■ upland cotton
-
6 Ct. Cl. 235 Court of Claims December 15, 1870Not cited
Nott, J., delivered the opinion of the court: This is an action brought to recover the proceeds of eight *237 bales of upland cotton, captured at Savannah, amounting- to $2,120 40. The court finds as matter of fact in this case— First. In the year 1863 Daniel
-
6 Ct. Cl. 398 Court of Claims December 15, 1870Not cited Dissent · Boring
Boring, J., dissenting: Because I think the claimants had a right to sell the products of their business to the Confederate Government as well as to individuals in the Confederate States, and I do not think the evidence shows that they entered into the business
-
6 Ct. Cl. 421 Court of Claims December 15, 1870
Nott, J., delivered the opinion of the court: This is an action brought under the Abandoned or captured property aet, to recover $100,000 for one hundred and thirty bales of cotton captured at Wilmington, North Carolina. It is one of those extraordinary cases
-
78 F. Supp. 793 Court of Claims June 28, 1948 Nos. C 531-(18), (19), (21), (23), and (24)
LITTLETON, Judge. These cases are, in certain respects, companion cases to C-531 (11), this day decided on defendant’s motion to dismiss the supplemental petition. 78 F.Supp. 787 . In the amended petition No. 11 filed in that case, to the original petition No
-
8 Cl. Ct. 693 Court of Claims September 16, 1985 No. 9-85C
MEMORANDUM OPINION LYDON, Judge: This litigation involves claims by the State of Washington and three public educational institutions (community colleges) established by the legislature of the State of Washington, who contracted with the Veterans Administration
-
401 F.2d 806 Court of Claims October 18, 1968 No. 59-66
OPINION PER CURIAM: This case was referred to Chief Trial Commissioner Marion T. Bennett with directions to make findings of fact and recommendation for conclusions of law under the order of reference and Rule 57(a). The Commissioner has done so in an opinion
-
58 F.2d 1063 Court of Claims May 31, 1932 No. L-293
LITTLETON, Judge. Plaintiff contends that for the purpose of the statute of limitation the assessment of the tax in question, being a portion of the total tax shown by him to be due upon the return filed, was made on March 15, 1920, when he filed his return,
-
551 F.2d 852 Court of Claims April 1, 1977 No. 312-74
ORDER This case comes before the court on defendant’s motion, filed January 18,1977, for rehearing en banc pursuant to Rules 7(d) and 151. Upon consideration thereof, together with plaintiff’s response in opposition thereto, without oral argument, by the seven
-
292 F.2d 868 Court of Claims November 1, 1961 No. 433-57
PER CURIAM. This case was referred pursuant to Rule 45, 28 U.S.C., to Donald E. Lane, a trial commissioner of this court, with directions to make findings of fact and recommendations for conclusion of law. The commissioner has done so in a report filed October
-
325 F.2d 446 Court of Claims December 13, 1963 No. 76-61Cited by 26 Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part · Whitaker
WHITAKER, Judge (concurring in part and dissenting in part): I concur in that part of the opinion which holds that the contract was validly awarded to plaintiff in the first instance, and later was wrongfully can-celled. I dissent from the holding that the measure
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.