Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 5791. Mary A. Wisenor va. The United States.]

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that the Commissioners of Claims, when the same claim was before them, were not satisfied, upon the evidence then produced, that Mary A. Wisenor, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and no additional evidence having been produced the court makes the same finding, and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed January 20, 1890.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 4705. William Thigpen vs. The United States.]

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that William Thigpen, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; aud the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed January 20, 1890.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 5678. Minnie Powell, administratrix of Lucy Matthews, vs The United States.]

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminar y inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that Lucy Matthews, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed January 20, 1890.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 4387. Mary A. Craig, administratrix of Frederick Craig, vs. The

United States.]

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that Frederick Craig, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed January 20, 1890.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 5977. Andrew J. Huggins vs. The United States.]

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a prelimina ry inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that Andrew J. Huggins, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States th roughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed January 27, 1890.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 1776. Linton Riddie vs. The United States.]

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that Linton Riddle, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed February 3, 1890.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 1000. Martin McCool vs. The United States.]

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that Martin McCool, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed February 3, 1890.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 4979. Wesley Rhodes vs. The United States.]

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that Wesley Rhodes, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed February 3, 1890.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 4463. Abraham Sheftall vs. The United States.]

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebelliou, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that Abraham Sheftall, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Goverument of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed February 3, 1890.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 1022. Mark Miller's Executor vs. The United States.]

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that Mark Miller, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed February 10, 1890.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 2225. William F. Sigimin vs. The United States.]

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that William F. Sigimin the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed February 17, 1890.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 3380. Joseph G. Sutton vs. The United States.]

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that Joseph G. Sutton, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and ths case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed February 17, 1890.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 3820. Cyrus McEwen vs. The United States.]

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that Cyrus McEwen, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed February 17, 1890.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 4047. Moore Blitch vs. The United States.]

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that Moore Blitch, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed February 17, 1890.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 6607. Jordan Peacock vs. The United States.]

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that Jordan Peacock, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed February 17, 1890.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 516. William Surratt vs. the United States.]

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that

upon the evidence it does not appear that William Surratt, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Go' ernment of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed February 24, 1890.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 3621. Alexander P. Rose vs. The United States.]

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that Alexander P. Rose, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction. Filed February 24, 1890.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 1394. Isabella T. Chambers, administratrix of W. A. Chambers, deceased, vs. The United States.]

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that said W. A. Chambers, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States througnout said war, and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed February 24, 1890.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 1725. Estate of Stephen W. Osborne vs. The United States.]

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that Stephen W. Osborne (since deceased), the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throngbout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction. Filed March 10, 1890.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 3316. Jesse Applewhite vs. The United States.]

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that Jesse Applewhite, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed March 10, 1890.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 3646. Henrietta M. Johnson vs. The United States.]

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that Henrietta M. Johnson, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed April 7, 1890.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 2582. Oscar F. Perry vs. The United States.]

This case, being a claim for supplies or atores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that Oscar F. Perry, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed April 14, 1890.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 5972. Richard H. Forman, administrator of George R. Dent, deceased, vs. The United States.]

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that George R. Dent, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed April 28, 1890.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 3518. A. J. Casey vs. The United States.]

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that A. J. Casey, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed May 5, 1890.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 4824. Mary Gwinn's administrator vs. The United States.]

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, ou a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that Mary Gwinn, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed May 5, 1890.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 5733. S. H. Simmons, executor of William Martin, deceased, vs ̧ The United States. |

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that William Martin, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is disin ssed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed May 5, 1890.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »