Case ID: us-ct-cl_23/html/0497-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Matthews", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JULIA A. NUTT, Executrix of Haller Nutt, deceased, v. THE UNITED STATES.
    (23 C. Cls. R., 68; 125 U. S. R., 650.)
    
      On the claimant’s Appeal.
    
    Congress enacted AugustT, 1882 (22 Stat. L., 734), “Thatthe Quartermaster-General of the United States is hereby authorized and directed to examine and adjust the claims of Julia A. Nutt, widow and executrix of Haller Nutt, deceased, late of Natchez, in the State of Mississippi, growing out of the occupation and use by the United States Army, during the late rebellion, of the property of the said Haller Nutt, during his life-time, or of hisestateafterhisdecease, including live-stock, goods, and moneys taken and used by the United States or the armies thereof; and he may consider the evidence heretofore taken on said claim, so far as applicable, before the Commissioners of Claims, and such other evidence as may be adduced before him in behalf of the legal representatives of Haller Nutt, or in behalf of the United States, and shaE report the facts to Congress, to be considered with other claims reported by the Quartermaster-General.”
    The Quartermaster-General made the examination, and reported to Congress the amount of property taken .to be $256,884.05. Subsequently, by the Appropriation Aot bfh July, 1884 (23 Stat. L., 552-586), the sum of $35,556.17 was directed to be paid to the claimant, who accepted and received the same. She now sues on the ground that the report of the Quartermaster-General was an award upon which an action can be founded, or if not an award, an account stated ratified by the Appropriation. Act in paying part of the amount.
    The court below decides:
    (1) That the reference did not constitute a submission to arbitration by Congress, and that the finding contained no element of an award nor of an account stated.
    (2) That the appropriation did not amount to an adoption of the report by Congress, nor did it carry any inference that a larger amount was due.
    The decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.
   Mr. Justice Matthews

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court April 16, 1888.