#### NATIONAL METROPOLITAN BANK OF WASHINGTON v. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

No. 287

April 9, 1883.

Tie claimant corporal ion sues for tlie rent of rooms in their building in Washington, leased to the levy court before its abolition, June 1, 1871r but held subsequently for District purposes under the governor of the-District. -

The legislature annually appropriated the money to pay this rent; but the claim, having been presented to the late Board of Audit, was rejected by that Board.

Held :

The court has no jurisdiction under the *District Claims Act of June*16, 1880, ch. 243 (21 Stat. atL., 284,1 Suppl. Kev. Stat., 563; 15 O. Cls. B., VII), of claims which accrued under either the levy court or the territorial government of the District, or which were presented to and rejected by the Board of Audit.

The amount in controversy in this case being less than $3,006 and the claimant not having a right of appeal, no finding of facts was made by the court. The facts are sufficiently set forth in the opinion.

*Mr. William Birney*for the claimant corporation:

1. The Court of Claims has jurisdiction over all claims arising under contracts made by the levy court. *(Act of June*16, 1880, Suppl. Rev. Stat., 562; 21 Stat. L., 284; 15 C. Cls. R.,. YII.)

2. The District of Columbia, as the successor of the levy court, retaining, the use and occupation of premises by virtue of an. *357unwritten contract between tbe owner thereof and said levy court, is bound for the payment of claims arising under said contract.

3. The appropriation by the District legislative assembly for the payment of this demand is a recognition of its legality and justice, and is equivalent to a mandate to the treasurer for the payment thereof. *(JEulcilVs Gase,*16 0. Cls. R., 562.)

*Mr. A. Brewster*(with whomNvas *Mr. Thomas Simons,*Assistant Attorney-General) for the defendant:

The jurisdiction of this court is limited by act of Congress to certain classes of claims, and as this claim arises out of a contract with the District of Columbia which is not embraced in any of the classes mentioned in the act. it can have no standing before this court. Again, the claimant presented this claim to the Board of Audit charging the levy court with the rent of the premises, and it was rejected. The claimant then -shifted his position, and presented. the claim in another form to the said Board, charging the trustees of county schools with the rent of the premises, and it was also rejected. This -claim, having been thus rejected by the Board of Audit, this -court has no jurisdiction to entertain it.

OPINION.

Davis, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

Prior to the organization of the territorial government over the District of Columbia the levy court of the county had an -office in Washington, in a building belonging to the claimant.

There was no written lease of the premises, but the occupation was under a parol letting at an agreed rental, which was paid from time to time as it became due.

After the 1st day of June, 1871, when tbe change in theform of government toot effect, the levy court, although its powers as to future operations had become absorbed in the new government, continued to occupy the premises for the purpose of closing up its old business.

A room being needed by the new government for the use of the trustees of the county schools, by direction of the governor ■of the District those trustees accommodated themselves in the premises used by the levy court for closing up its business. *358These two branches, the one of the old and the other of the-new government, continued to occupy the premises together until the levy court had wound up its affairs. After that the school trustees occupied them. This occupation continued.' until June, 1873, a term of two years.

On the 26th June, 1873, the legislative assembly of the District made the following appropriation:

> For rent of room for use of Board of TrusteesiuMetropolitauBanklmild-ing, at ¡¡¡¡500 per annum, ft,000.

This appropriation not having been paid when the territorial government was dissolved, the claimant presented a bill to the-District Commissioners for ren t for the occupation of the premises by the levy court. It was referred by the Commissioners to* the Board of Audit, who disallowed it on the ground that the levy court having been abolished June 1,1871, the claim for the occupation of a room by that body should have been against that court and not against the District of Columbia.

The claimant then claimed the rent from the Commissioners,, on the ground that the room had been occupied by the trustees-of the county schools. This was referred to the Board of Audit and disallowed by them, on the ground that, although the room-had been occupied by the trustees, the hiring had been made-by the levy court.

The claimant now brings suit in this court to recover what, is manifestly its due, and what ought to have beeu allowed by the Board of Audit. If an individual had acted as the Board of Audit acted toward this claimant the transaction would have-been open to question. But, although the claim is just and meritorious, this court can afford no relief to the claimant. As. was pertinently said by the counsel for the District, we have-no jurisdiction either over contracts made by the territorial government between June, 1871, and June, 1873, or over contracts made by the levy court, which have been presented to* and rejected by the Board of Audit. (Looney's Case, *ante,*8.)

The judgment of the court is that the claimant’s petition be-dismissed without prejudice, for want of jurisdiction.