1. Gilbert Copy cite
   35 Ct. Cl. 636 Court of Claims May 14, 1900 No. 20682
   Not cited

   Fees of U. S. commissioner. $1,285.30.

2. Pride Copy cite
   35 Ct. Cl. 639 Court of Claims May 28, 1900 No. 20895
   Not cited

   Fees of IT. S. commissioner. §159.20.

3. Turner Copy cite
   35 Ct. Cl. 635 Court of Claims April 2, 1900 No. 21146
   Not cited

   Contract for flour for Indian service. $240.

4. Burgy Copy cite
   35 Ct. Cl. 635 Court of Claims April 2, 1900 No. 21221
   Not cited

   Contract for flour for Indian service.. Dismissed.

5. Gleason & Gosnell Copy cite
   35 Ct. Cl. 635 Court of Claims April 7, 1900 Nos. 17782, 17783
   Not cited

   Canal contract; on mandate of Supreme Court. $5,412.99.

6. Hart Copy cite
   35 Ct. Cl. 632 Court of Claims February 12, 1900 No. 21038
   Not cited

   Fees of U. S. commissioner. $31.50.

7. Watton Copy cite
   35 Ct. Cl. 632 Court of Claims February 26, 1900 No. 20487
   Not cited

   Direct tax. $1,173.31.

8. Briggs Copy cite
   35 Ct. Cl. 638 Court of Claims May 21, 1900 No. 19236
   Not cited

   Fees of U. S. commissioner. $1,578.20.

9. Knight v. United States Copy cite
   35 Ct. Cl. 129 Court of Claims February 26, 1900 No. 21016
   Cited by 1

   Ho wet, J., delivered the opinion of the court: Plaintiff’s intestate was in 1896 appointed one of several commissioners to examine and classify lands within the land grant and indemnity land grant limits of the Northern Pacific Railroad, with special reference

10. Ayres v. United States Copy cite
    44 Ct. Cl. 48 Court of Claims December 14, 1908 No. 11903
    Cited by 1

    Howry, J., delivered the opinion of the court: This is a motion by the claimant for a new hearing (and treated as such by consent) and to amend certain findings of fact found by the court and filed under an act approved February 24,1905. (33 Stats., 808; 42

11. Ellicott Machine Co. v. United States Copy cite
    44 Ct. Cl. 127 Court of Claims January 4, 1909 No. 29907
    Cited by 3

    Atkinson, J., delivered the opinion of the court. The defendants file a motion herein for a new trial on the grounds that the findings and judgment of the court are contrary to the law and the evidence. *129 While it is true, as argued at bar, that there was

12. Muskrat v. United States Copy cite
    44 Ct. Cl. 137 Court of Claims January 4, 1909 No. 29986
    Cited by 3

    Peelle, Ch. J., delivered the opinion of the court: By a provision in the Indian appropriation act March 1, 1907 (34 Stat. L., 1015, 1028), set out in Finding X, jurisdiction was conferred upon the court, with the right of appeal, “ to determine the validity

13. Parish v. United States Copy cite
    36 Ct. Cl. 262 Court of Claims April 15, 1901 Nos. French Spoliations, 2430, 2001
    Cited by 3

    Nott, Ch. J., delivered the opinion of the court: This case presents a peculiar combination of circumstances. On the one hand, it appears by the protest of the master of *265 the ship that on the 28th of February, 1800, the schooner, carrying an innocent cargo

14. Smith v. United States Copy cite
    36 Ct. Cl. 304 Court of Claims April 22, 1901 No. 21636
    Cited by 1

    Nott, Ch. J., delivered the opinion of the court. This case presents the question whether an enlisted fireman in the Navy has bee.n lawfully deprived of his lawful pay by the sentence of a court-martial. Questions of military law, or the proceedings of military

15. Royce v. United States Copy cite
    36 Ct. Cl. 328 Court of Claims April 29, 1901 No. 21415
    Cited by 1

    Peelle, J., delivered the opinion of the court: The claimant, a chaplain in the United States Navy, seeks to recover the difference between the pay he received under Revised Statutes, section 1556, during his first five years’ service, and the additional pay

16. Barrett v. United States Copy cite
    37 Ct. Cl. 44 Court of Claims December 2, 1901 No. 21419
    Cited by 3

    Peelle, J., delivered the opinion of the court: A recovery is sought in this case for the difference between $600 per annum paid the claimant as clerk in the post-office at Washington, Ind., an office of the second class, and the *46 minimum salary of $700

17. Monroe v. United States Copy cite
    37 Ct. Cl. 79 Court of Claims December 2, 1901 No. 20003
    Cited by 2

    Nott, Ch. J., delivered the opinion of the court: Judgment was rendered in this case on the 26th of February, 1900, in favor of the defendants ( 35 C. Cls. R., 199 ). *80 The claimants appealed and the case is pending in the Supreme Court upon appeal. The

18. Louis v. United States Copy cite
    37 Ct. Cl. 81 Court of Claims December 9, 1901 No. 18810
    Not cited

    Howry, J., delivered the opinion of the court: This is one of a class of cases awaiting determination as to the scope and practical effect of the provisions of the act of March 3,1891, entitled “An act to revise the wages of certain employees in the Government

19. Magurn v. United States Copy cite
    39 Ct. Cl. 416 Court of Claims April 18, 1904 No. 23320
    Cited by 3

    Wright, J., delivered the opinion of the court: This suit is brought by the plaintiff to recover the extra pay provided for officers and enlisted men of the United States Volunteers by the first section of the act of Congress approved January 12, 1899 (30 Stat

20. Swan & Finch Co. v. United States Copy cite
    37 Ct. Cl. 101 Court of Claims December 16, 1901 No. 20991
    Not cited

    Howry, J., delivered the opinion of the court: This case depends upon the meaning of the words “exportation" and “export” as used in the statute which allows drawback on imported materials used in the manufacture or production of articles entitled to drawback

Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.