Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

2d Session.

No. 69.

CHARLOTTE A. WADDELL, EXECUTRIX OF WILLIAM C. H.

WADDELL.

Letter from the Assistant Clerk of the Court of Claims, transmitting a copy of the findings filed by the court in the case of Charlotte A. Waddell, executrix of William C. H. Waddell against the United States.

DECEMBER 18, 1890.-Referred to the Committee on Claims.

COURT OF CLAIMS, CLERK'S OFFICE,

Washington, December 17, 1890.

SIR: Pursuant to the order of the court I transmit herewith a certified copy of the findings and opinion of the court in the aforesaid cause, which case was referred to this court by the Committee on Claims, House of Representatives, under the act of March 3, 1883.

I am, very respectfully, yours, etc.,

Hon. THOS. B. REED,

JOHN RANDOLPH,

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

[In the Court of Claims, December term, 1884. Congressional case No. 131. Charlotte A. Waddell, executrix of William C. H. Waddell, v. The United States.]

PETITION.

[Filed April 22, 1885.-J. R.]

To the honorable the Court of Claims:

The claimant, Charlotte A. Waddell, respectfully shows to this honorable court: 1. The claimant is executrix of the estate of William C. H. Waddell, deceased, as by her letters testamentary filed herewith will fully appear.

2. Said William C. H. Waddell was duly commissioned as marshal of the United States for the southern district of New York by Andrew Jackson, President of the United States, and held that office from the 7th day of November, 1-31, until the 10th day of December, 1839, when his several commissions as marshal terminated by law. 3. There remain due to said William C. H. Waddell the following items of fees, costs, and disbursements, all of which were properly taxed and allowed by the district judge of the United States, but which were never paid, either to said Waddell or to this claimant, or to any one on his behalf:

1. Fees, costs, and expenses in the case of The United States v. 45 Packages of Glassware

2. Fees, costs, and expenses in the case of The United States v. 19 Cases of Scissors..

3. Fees, costs, and expenses in the case of The United States v. 8 Cases Containing Cloths

4. Fees, costs, and expenses in the case of The United States v. 3 Cases of Hair Seating..

$1,003. 12

113.97

1,023.82

254.47

5. Fees, costs, and expenses in the case of The United States v. 34 Packages of Cloths

6. Fees, costs, and expenses in the case of The United States v. 4 Bales and 2 Cases of Cloths and Cassimeres

7. Fees, costs, and expenses in the case of The United States v. 191 Casks of Glassware

8. Fees, costs, and expenses in the case of The United States v. 123 Casks of Glassware

9. Fees, costs, and expenses in the case of The United States v. 104 Casks of Glassware

....

10. Fees, expenses, and poundage upon the service of a warrant of distress issued by the Solicitor of the Treasury in the nature of a ca. sa. et fi. fa., dated November 12, 1838, against Samuel Swartwout, late collector of customs for the port of New York, for the sum of $1,344, 119....

Total.

$2,306.75 571.56

2,266,65

4,029.38

3, 196.74

18, 102.33 32,868.79

All of said fees, costs, expenses, and poundage were duly and regularly taxed by the district judge of the United States for the southern district of New York, but the same have not been paid nor any part thereof.

The aforesaid items were duly submitted to the accounting officers of the Treasury, and were by them not allowed, notwithstanding the proper taxation of the same by the district judge, which was by law final. Subsequently this claim was presented to Congress, and no final action was taken thereon until the first session of the Fortyeighth Congress, when the Committee on Claims of the House of Representatives referred the claim to this court. No other action than as aforesaid has been had on this claim in Congress or by any of the Departments.

4. The claimant is the sole owner of this claim and the only person interested therein, and no assignment or transfer of this claim, or of any part thereof or interest therein, has been made. The claimant is justly entitled to the amount herein claimed from the United States, after allowing all just credits and offsets. The claimant is a citizen of the United States, and has at all times borne true allegiance to the Government thereof, and has not in any way voluntarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against the said Government; and the claimant believes the facts as stated in this petition to be true. And the claimant prays that the facts as above stated be found by this court and reported to the said Committee on Claims for its consideration.

WM. W. BELKNAP,
GEORGE A. KING.
Attorneys for Claimant.

George A. King, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am attorney for the claimant in this case. I have read the above petition, and the matters therein stated are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Sworn and subscribed to before me this 21st day of April, 1885. [SEAL.]

GEORGE A. KING.

JOHN RANDOLph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims.

U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Committee on Claims, June 5, 1884.

At a meeting of the Committee on Claims of the House of Representatives of the United States, held on the 23d day of May, A. D. 1884, the following order was made by that committee:

Ordered, That House bill No. 4552, for the relief of William Coventry H. Waddell, which was referred to this committee by order of the House of Representatives, and is now pending before said committee, be transmitted (in accordance with the provisions of an act entitled "An act to afford assistance and relief to Congress and the Executive Departments in the investigation of claims and demands against the Government," approved March 3, 1833, to the Court of Claims of the United States, together with the vouchers, papers, proofs, and documents appertaining thereto. In obedience to said order I herewith transmit to the Court of Claims of the United States said bill, together with all the papers appertaining thereto which have come into my possession as clerk of said committee. W. B. PETTIE,

Clerk to U. S. House of Representatives Committee on Claims.

Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 131. Departmental, No. 28. Decided April 21, 1890. Charlotte A. Waddell, executrix of William C. H. Waddell, v. The United States.]

FINDINGS OF FACT.

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee on Claims of the House of Representatives on the 5th day of June, 1884, and by the Secretary of the Treasury April 8, 186.

George A. King, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by John C. Chaney, his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States.

The case having been brought to a hearing on the 14th day of April, 1890, the court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, finds the facts to be as follows:

I.

The claimant is executrix of the estate of William C. H. Waddell, deceased.

II.

Said W. C. H. Waddell was appointed marshal of the United States for the southern district of New York by Andrew Jackson, President, and by that appointment and reappointment held the office from November 7, 1831, to December 10, 1839, when the last commission expired.

III.

In 1846 the claimant's testator (W. C. H. Waddell) presented to the Treasury Department for adjustment and payment accounts for fees, disbursements, cartage, labor, storage, insurances, and other costs in cases in which the United States were a party, which costs had previously been taxed and allowed by the district judge of the United States for the southern district of New York. These accounts were examined by the accounting officers, and on the 7th day of April, 1851, the sum of $3,829.42 was allowed and subsequently paid, and the balance, $10,927.04, was disallowed by the First Comptroller. No further action was taken for the collection of the claim until December 5, 1885, when it was again presented to the Treasury Department for payment by the attorney of the present claimant as executrix.

Another claim is thus stated in the petitions: "Fees, expenses, and poundage upon the service of a warrant of distress issued by the Solicitor of the Treasury in the nature of ca. sa. et. fi. fa., dated November 12, 1838, against Samuel Swartwout, late collector of customs for the port of New York, for the sum of $1,344,119, $18,102.33."

This last-mentioned claim was never presented to the Treasury Department until December 5, 1885, when, with the other accounts, it was sent to the Department and payment demanded by said attorneys of the present claimant. No allegations are made of fraud, mistake in matters of fact arising from errors in calculation, or newly discovered material evidence.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.

Upon the prayer for judgment in the amended petition in Departmental case No. 28, the claimant's amended petition must be dismissed on the ground that the claims are barred by the provisions of section 1069 of the Revised Statutes.

The first claim of $10,927.04 can not be reexamined by the present accounting officers because it was disallowed by their predecessors more than thirty-five years ago, and accounts once settled by accounting officers can not be re-opened except for fraud, manifest mistake in matters of fact arising from an error in calculation, or newly discovered material evidence.

The second claim for $18,102.33 can not be considered by the accounting officers because it is a stale claim which accrued, if at all, more than forty-seven years before its presentation to the Treasury Department.

OPINION.

RICHARDSON, C. J., delivered the opinion of the court:

This case is before us under three distinct provisions of the statutes conferring jurisdiction upon the court.

1. June 5, 1884, it was transmitted by the Committtee on Claims of the House of Representatives for a finding of fact by the court under section one of the Bowman

Act of March 3, 1883, chapter 116 (22 Stat. L., 485). In that case the claimant filed her petition April 22, 1885.

2. April 8, 1886, it was transmitted by the Secretary of the Treasury, under section two of that act, for finding of facts, conclusions of law, and opinion. In that case the claimant filed her petition April 20, 1886.

3. After the passage of the act of March 3, 1857, chapter 359 (24 Stat. L., 505), the claimant filed an amended petition in the latter case which, after setting out the allegations of facts relied upon, prays that the court will find as a conclusion of law that there is due the claimant the sum of $32,868.79, and that the court will thereupon proceed to render judgment in her favor for that amount in accordance with the provisions of section 13 of the latter act. That section is as follows:

"SEC. 13. That in every case which shall come before the Court of Claims, or is now pending therein, under the provisions of an act entitled "An act to afford assistance and relief to Congress and the Executive Departments in the investigation of claims and demands against the Government," approved March third eighteen hundred and eighty three, if it shall appear to the satisfaction of the court, upon the facts established, that it has jurisdiction to render judgment or decree thereon under existing laws or under the provisions of this act, it shall proceed to do so, giving to either party such further opportunity for hearing as in its judgment justice shall require, and report its proceedings therein to either house of Congress or to the Department by which the same was referred to said court."

There are two claims in the case transmitted by the Secretary of the Treasury, differing somewhat in the principles of law to which they give rise.

The first is a claim presented to the Department and disallowed more than thirtyfive years ago by the predecessors of the present accounting officers, who were asked, after that lapse of time, to pass upon and allow it, without allegations of fraud, mistake, or newly discovered evidence.

The second claim accrued, if at all, more than forty-seven years before it was presented to the Treasury Department, December 5, 1885.

Both claims are barred by the Revised Statutes, section 1059, from the jurisdiction of the court to render judgment, as they accrued, if at ah, more than six years before the filing of the petition, and section 13 of the act of 1887 authorizes a judgment in petitions under that act or the act of 1883 (the Bowman act) only when "it shall appear to the satisfaction of the court, upon the facts established, that it has jurisdietion to render judgment or decree under existing laws or under the provisions of this act." There is no provision in the act itself for judgment in such case, and the preexisting law forever barred the claims. The amended petition must therefore be dismissed.

The two claims can not be received, examined, and allowed by the accounting officers of the Treasury for other reasons not alike in relation to each claim.

The first claim, disallowed more than thirty-five years ago, has passed beyond the control of the accounting officers and the head of the Department who have been appointed since the time of that disallowance. The law has been too well settled to be in doubt at this time, that public officers can not open and reëxamine cases decided by their predecessors except for fraud, mistake in matters of fact arising from errors in calculation, or newly discovered material evidence. (United States re. Bank of Metropolis, 15 Pet., 401; Lavalette's Case, 1 C. Cls. R., 149; Jackson's Case, 19 C. Cls. R., 504; Illinois Case, 20 C. Cls. R., 342; Day's Case, 21 C. Cls. R., 262. Opinions of Attorneys-General, vol. 9, p. 34; vol. 12, pp. 172, 358; vol. 13, pp. 387, 456, vol. 14, p. 275.)

The second claim, which accrued, if at all, in 1838, was not presented to the Treasury Department until December 5, 1885, a period of forty-seven years. It is therefore a stale claim, which the accounting officers have no right to receive, examine, and settle. It was not the purpose of Congress by the Bowman act and the act of 1887 to open and revive stale claims, but rather to provide for a judicial investigation of live and open accounts which are within the cognizance of the accounting officers, and for the determination of other matters. (McClure's and Porter's Cases, 19 C. Cls. R., 18.)

It has often been said that there is no statute of limitation applicable to claims required to be presented and examined by the accounting officers of the Treasury Department, and that is undoubtedly so. But there is an unwritten law recognized by courts of equity and admiralty in which no statute of limitation is applicable, against entertaining and enforcing stale claims (Speidel vs. Henrici, 120 U. S. R., 387, and numerous cases there cited; Willard vs. Dorr, 3 Mason C. C. R., 161), and that law the accounting officers may rightly invoke and rely upon.

A state claim is one that has not been presented for payment for a long period of time, during which the claimant has slept upon his rights and thus created a presumption that the claim was never an honest and just one, and that he has been waiting until it was forgotten by the alleged debtor, and all evidence against it is lost or destroyed. Courts of equity usually follow the law and adopt the stat

utes of limitation as fixing the period beyond which delay requires explanation, and which, unless satisfactorily accounted for, will constitute a bar to demands. We see no reason why the accounting officers may not rightly adopt the same rule.

But there is much indebtedness of the United States which no lapse of time in making application for payment renders stale, such as interest on registered bonds and other balances stated in favor of parties on the books of the Treasury Department, as to which the only proof to be made is the identity of the claimant or his right to represent the record-creditor (Rev. Stat., secs. 306, 307, 308, Hall s Case, 17 C. Cls. R., 39); the public debt evidenced by bonds and coupons of record in the Department, and, no doubt, other indebtedness of like kind which we have not considered. The clerk will certify the findings of fact and conclusions of law and opinion to the Treasury Department for its guidance and action, will certify the findings of fact with this opinion to the Committee on Claims of the House of Representatives and will enter judgment in the case transmitted to the court by the Secretary of the Treasury (Departmental, No. 28) dismissing the amended petition.

[blocks in formation]

BY THE COURT.

JOHN RANDOLPH,

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »