are cited in the notes. As it is impossible to analyse them all in a book of this nature they should all be carefully examined.

Delafield vs. Colden, N. Y. Ct. Chan. 1828, 1 Paige, 139, WALWORTH, Chancellor. Held, that after the dissolution of a copartnership the amount awarded by commissioners on a claim against the Spanish government, in which there had been a long delay of prosecution and collection, the representatives of a partner were entitled to collect their share on paying a proportion of the expenses and that the liquidating partner had prosecuted the claim as trustee for all concerned.

Dutilh vs. Coursalt, U. S. Cir. Ct. D. C. 1837, 5 Cranch, C. C. 349, GRANBY, J., Fed. Cas. 4206. Conflicting claims to awards settled.

Frevall vs. Bache, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1840, 14 Peters, 95, TANEY, Ch. J. Held, that the courts had jurisdiction to determine conflicting claims to award.

Emerson vs. Hall, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1839, 13 Peters, 409, MCLEAN, J. The difference between a claim against a foreign government, assumed by the United States or settled in a Claims Convention and subsequent commission, and a donation by the United States indemnifying a person who had suffered loss is distinguished in this case, the Supreme Court holding that the reimbursement was in the nature of an award and not of a claim, and, therefore, went to the heirs of the original person and not to his creditors.

French Spoliation cases, Ct. of Claims, 1884-1896. See note 1 under § 442, pp. 283, 284, ante.

Gill vs. Oliver's Executors, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1850, 11 How. 529, GRIER, J., Williams vs. Gibbes, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1857, 20 Howard, 535, NELSON, J., and Mayer vs. White, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1860, 24 Howard, 317, NELSON, J. These three cases all involved the status of the same claim against Mexico and rights of assignees and executors of original parties which were adjudicated after the award had been made and collected.

Heard vs. Bradford, Sup. Ct. Mass. 1808, 4 Mass. 326, SEDGWICK, J. Conflicting claims to award under treaty with Great Britain adjudicated. Judson vs. Corcoran, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1854, 17 Howard, 612, CATRON, J. Assignability of international claims.

Law vs. Thorndike, Sup. Ct. Mass. 1838, 20 Pick. (Mass.) 317, SHAW, Ch. J.

Lee, Adm'x, vs. Thorndike, Sup. Ct. Mass. 1841, 43 Mass. 313, PUTMAN, J. The above cases involved conflicting claims to awards under the French treaty of 1831.

Leonard vs. Nye, Sup. Ct. Mass. 1878, 125 Mass. 455, GRAY, Ch. J. Comegys vs. Vasse, 1 Peters, 193, followed and held that claims under the Geneva Award were based upon the original claim against Great Britain and not upon the subsequent recognition of the claims by Great Britain, and that those claims became property and passed to the assignee.

Lewis vs. Bell, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1854, 17 Howard, 616, GRIER, J. Held that "where a claimant upon the government of Brazil assigned his claim to a creditor soon after the transaction occurred which gave rise to the claim, and the assignment appeared to have been made upon good

444. Methods of enforcing claims of this nature; courts and commissions; National and individual claims distinguished.-Claims of citizens of the United States

consideration, the assignee was entitled to receive the proceeds of the award of the commissioners. The assignee took measures, immediately after the assignment, to protect his rights."

New York Ins. Co. vs. Roulet, Ct. of Errors, New York, 1840, 24 Wendell 505, BRADISH, Pres. etc., NELSON, C. J. Same case as Varet vs. New York Ins. Co., New York, Chancery 1839, 7 Paige Ch., 560, WALWORTH Chan. In affirming the judgment below the point decided is stated in the syllabus as follows:

"Where a cargo of merchandise, which was insured, was seized and condemned by the French government under the Berlin and Milan decrees, and a compromise was subsequently made between the underwriters and the assured, by which the latter accepted from the former $5,000 in satisfaction of their claim against the underwriters, which was for $15,000, and surrendered the policy, but did not assign or cede the right to claim indemnity from the French government, it was held, on the underwriters subsequently obtaining $5,000 under the convention between the American and French governments, providing indemnity for spoliation upon our commerce, that the award of the commissioners under the treaty, giving the money to the underwriters instead of the assured, was not conclusive as between the parties, and that the money thus obtained was held in trust for the assured, and the underwriters were decreed to pay over the same.

"It was also held, that though an action at law might have been sustained for the recovery of the money, a bill in equity was proper; the jurisdiction of the courts in a case like this being concurrent."

Ridgway vs. Hays, U. S. Cir. Ct. D. C. 1836, 5 Cranch C. C. 23, CRANCH, J. Controversy over award; distribution of award by French claim commission of 1831.

Stewart vs. Callaghan, U. S. Cir. Ct. Dist. Columbia, 1835, 4 Cranch C. C. 594. Held, that the commissions of a supercargo of a sequestered cargo are a charge upon the proceeds of sales, and are not included in the indemnity to be granted by the sequestering government.

The indemnity stands in the place of the proceeds of sale and the commissions are a charge upon that indemnity.

Shepard vs. Taylor, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1831, 5 Peters, 675, STORY, J. Conflicting claims to award of commission adjudicated.

Thomas vs. United States and Roberts vs. Same, U. S. Ct. Claims, 1 Devereux, 29 and 31, BLACKFORD, J. In these cases held that the rejection of claims submitted to the commission appointed under the treaty with Spain of 1819 and rejected, was final and that there was no appeal from such decision.

United States vs. Diekelman, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1875, 92 U. S. 520. WAITE, Ch. J. In this case a claim of the owner of the Essex detained during the civil war was rejected.

United States vs. Ferreira, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1851, 13 Howard 40, TANEY,

against foreign governments are not determined by municipal, but by international law. It may be stated as a general proposition of law that the courts of this country, Federal and State, have no jurisdiction thereover;1 and, as has already

Ch. J. Status of claims arising against Spain under Florida treaty of 1819 and assumption by United States.

United States vs. Gilliat, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1896, 164 U. S. 42, PECKHAM, J. This is a brief opinion deciding what Congress intended to do by the act of 1894 in regard to French spoliation claims. The point decided is stated in the syllabus.

This came up at this time on a motion to dismiss the appeal which had been taken by the United States from a decree of the Court of Claims and the motion was granted.

The syllabus states as follows:

"It was the intention of Congress, by the language used in the act of August 23, 1894, c. 307, 28 Stat. 424, 487, to refer to the Court of Claims simply the ascertainment of the proper person to be paid the sum which it had already acknowledged to be due to the representatives of the original sufferers from the spoliation, and not that the decision with the Court of Claims might arrive at should be the subject of an appeal to this court; and that when such fact had been ascertained by the Court of Claims, upon evidence sufficient to satisfy that court, it was to be certified by the court to the Secretary of the Treasury, and such certificate was to be final and conclusive."

United States vs. Lee, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1882, 106 U. S. 196, MILLER, J. The doctrine examined and affirmed that except where Congress has so provided, the United States cannot be sued.

United States vs. O'Keefe, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1870, 11 Wallace 178, DAVIS, J. Right of citizens of Great Britain to sue United States in Court of Claims. United States vs. Realty Co., U. S. Sup. Ct. 1896, 163 U. S. 427, PECKHAM, J. Nature of claims against governments. Status of Alabama

claims.

United States vs. Weld, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1888, 127 U. S. 51, LAMAR, J. Status of Alabama claims and jurisdiction of Court of Claims over cases arising from treaties.

Williams vs. Heard, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1891, 140 U. S. 529, Lamar, J. Comegys vs. Vasse, 1 Peters, 193, again affirmed and applied. United States vs. Weld, 127 U. S 51, distinguished.

Wylie vs. Coxe, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1853, 15 Howard, 415, MCLEAN, J. Controversy over award, including attorney's right to compensation, settled. § 444.

1

NOTE ON THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS.

The Court of Claims was established by an act of Congress passed February 4, 1855 (10 Stat. at L., p. 612; Devereux's Ct. Clms. Rep., App. p. 16). Section 1 of this act gave the court jurisdiction to "hear and determine all claims founded upon any law of Congress, or upon any regulation of an executive department, or upon any contract, express or

been stated, the cases cited in the notes to the foregoing sections relate to the disposition of the award as between parties implied, with the government of the United States, which may be suggested to it by a petition filed therein; and also all claims which may be referred to said court by either house of Congress.”

The present jurisdiction of the court is determined by the act of Congress of March 3, 1887, commonly called the "Tucker Act" (24 Stat. at L., p. 505). This act gives the court jurisdiction over “all claims founded upon the Constitution of the United States or any law of Congress, except for pensions, or upon any regulation of an Executive Department, or upon any contract, express or implied, with the Government of the United States, or for damages, liquidated or unliquidated, in cases not sounding in tort, in respect of which claims the party would be entitled to redress against the United States either in a court of law, equity, or admiralty if the United States were suable: Provided, however," this shall not include jurisdiction over claims "growing out of the late civil war and commonly known as 6 war claims,' or claims "which have heretofore been rejected, or reported on adversely by any court, Department, or commission authorized to hear and determine the same" (sec. 1). The United States district and circuit courts are given concurrent jurisdiction in certain cases (sec. 2). The jurisdiction thus granted "shall be governed by the law now in force, in so far as the same is applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions of this act" (sec. 4). The right of appeal previously existing is continued (sec. 9). Heads of Departments (sec. 12), and either House of Congress (sec. 14) may refer pending claims to the court which shall report back on such cases. "All laws and parts of laws inconsistent with this act are hereby repealed" (sec. 16).

Previous to this act the laws determining the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims were contained in the U. S. Revised Statutes, §§ 1049 to 1093, inclusive, and §§ 188, 707, 708; in the act of March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. at L., p. 820); in the act of July 4, 1864 (13 Stat. at L., p. 381); in the joint resolution of June 18, 1866 (14 Stat. at L., p. 360); in the act of February 21, 1867 (14 Stat. at L., p. 397); in the act of July 27, 1868 (15 Stat. at L., p. 243); in the joint resolution of December 23, 1869 (16 Stat. at L., p. 368); in the joint resolution of March 3, 1871 (16 Stat. at L., p. 600); in the act of March 1, 1879 (20 Stat. at L., p. 324); in the act of June 16, 1880 (21 Stat. at L., p. 284); and in the act of March 3, 1883, commonly called the "Bowman Act" (22 Stat. at L., p. 485).

Whether the “Tucker Act" repealed these former statutes or not raises many questions. The only one that need be discussed in this work is whether it repealed § 1066 of the United States Revised Statutes which is as follows:

"Sec. 1066. The jurisdiction of the said court shall not extend to any claim against the government not pending therein on December one, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, growing out of or dependent on any treaty stipulation entered into with foreign nations or with the Indian tribes."

claiming the same, and not to the merits of the claim as between the citizen of the United States, and the foreign gov

Under this section the Court of Claims had constantly refused to take jurisdiction of any claims "dependent on any treaty stipulation" unless they were referred to it by a special act of Congress. Kinkead vs. United States, U. S. Ct. of Claims, 1883, 18 Ct. Claims, 504, DRAKE, Ch. J.; and see 24 Stat. at L. 358, cited later in this note. Since the passage of the "Tucker Act," this question has not been definitely decided. In one case the Court of Claims held that section 1066 is a restriction upon cases defined in sections 1059 and 1063 of the Revised Statutes, cases in which final judgment is entered, and it cannot be held to apply to the jurisdiction since given by the act of 1883" (the "Bowman Act") which allowed the heads of departments and committees of Congress to send cases to the Court of Claims. The court held that the "Bowman Act" was not superseded by the "Tucker Act," and uttered a very strong dictum to the effect that the "Tucker Act" did not repeal the restriction of section 1066 of the Revised Statutes. Chickasaw Nation vs. United States, U. S. Ct. of Claims, 1887, 22 Ct. Claims, 222, at pp. 246–248, DAVIS, J. See also: The Thingvalla Line vs. The United States, U. S. Ct. of Claims, 1889, 24 Ct. Claims, 255, 261, RICHARDSON, Ch. J. This question is also touched on but not decided in United States vs. Weld, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1888, 127 U. S. 51, 56, LAMAR, J. See also: Williams vs. Heard, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1891, 140 U. S. 529, 545, LAMAR, J., same case sub nomine Heard vs. Sturgis, Mass. Sup. Ct. 1888, 146 Mass. 545, HOLMES, J.; and notes on the Revised Statutes of the United States, by John M. Gould and George F. Tucker, 1889, p. 369. See n. 2, § 443, p. 288, ante. The Court of Claims, as a matter of fact, has never taken jurisdiction under these general statutes over a claim growing out of treaty stipulation in which the court renders a final judgment, except where it acts in an advisory capacity under the "Bowman Act," or under section 12 of the "Tucker Act." Thingvalla Line vs. United States, U. S. Ct. of Claims, 1889, 24 Ct. Claims, 255, 261, RICHARDSON, Ch. J. Such jurisdiction has, however, often been conferred by a special act of Congress, and when so conferred is exercised by the court.

In 1878 Congress referred the "Caldera" claims to the Court of Claims to be decided in the same manner as all other cases before that court, but limited such recovery to the amount of the balance remaining of the Chinese indemnity fund, paid to the United States by China under the treaty of November 8, 1858 (20 Stat. at L., p. 171).

The "French spoliation" claims were referred to the Court of Claims by the act of Congress of January 20, 1885 (23 Stat. at L., p. 283). These were the "claims to indemnity upon the French Government arising out of illegal captures, detentions, seizures, condemnations, and confiscations prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic concluded" September 30, 1800. The act excluded claims embraced in the convention of 1803 with France, claims paid in whole or in part under the treaty of the United States with Spain in 1819, and claims allowed under the treaty of 1831