The national Republican., 1867-02-14
The Courts.
SurRExE CouRr OF THE UsrrED srArEs--


SUPREME CouRr OF THE US1rED srArEs-
wrDsssDAr, February ls, 1857,
On motion Of WIN. Tracy, esq, John NJ Buck.
ingham, esq, and cornsiius A. Runkle, ESQ, Of
New York city, were admitted I" attorneys and
On motion Of o. W. Waldo, esq, Ithamsr o.
Sloan, esq, was admitted an attorney and counsel.
ior Of this court.
No; 1os. William A; Hsdd.n, John A. Hidden,
and Franci. Popp, plaintin. in error, vs.. Hiram
Barney. In error 10 the Circuit Court Of the
United States for the Southern District Of New
York Mr.. Justice Field delivered the opinion Of
the court, Affirming the Judgment Of the said Cir.
cult Court In this cause with costs.
No. 100. The Howard Fire Insurance Company,
plaintiffs In error, vs. arenyille M. Chase In or.
ror to the Circuit Court Of the United States for
the District Of Maine. Mr.. Justice Davis delivered
the opinion Of the court Affirming the judgment Of
the said Circuit Court 10 this cause With costs and
interest. Dissenting, Mr. Justice Miller.
No. l2T. Tbs Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty
Of the city Of New York, plaintiffs in error, vs.
William P, Sheffield In error to the Circuit Court
Of the United States for the Southern District Of
New York. Mr.. Justice Miller delivered the opin.
ion OF the court, affirming the judgment Of the said
Circuit Court In this cause with costs and interest
No. 1855. The Board df Supervisors Of Rock Isl.
and county plaintiffs In error, vs. the United
States the relation Of the State Bank. In error
TO the Circuit Court Of the United States for the
Northern District Of Illinois. Mr. Justice swayne
delivered the opinion Of tho court Affirming the
Judgment Of tho said Circuit Court In this cause
with costs.
No ill., Noah O. Nash and Emery D. Chaplin,
plaintiffs In error, vs.. Leonard Towne, IT,, and
George. W. Washburn. In error TO the Circuit
Court Of the United States for the District Of Wis.
oonsin Mr. Justice Clifford delivered the opinion
OF the court, Affirming the Judgment Of the said Cir
Quit Court In this cause With costs and interest.
No. 49, John @ Hansbrough and William T.
Hardin, appellants, vs.. Philip J. W. Peck Appeal
from the Circuit Court Of the United States for the
| NorthaFn Diatricl of Illinoia Mr. Iuatiea NaIaon
delivered the opinion Of the court, affirming the
decree Of the said Circuit Court In this cause, with
| costs.
No. 500. Tobias 8. Bradley Of al, PLAINTIFF In
error, vs. The People Of the State Of Illinois, This
cause was submitted to the confederation Of the
court on printed arguments BY Mr. Dexter, Of
counsel for the PLAINTIFF in error, and BY Mr..
Palmer, Of counsel for the defendant 10 error.
| No. 1&. James Barton, plaintiff In error,
Robert Forsyth. The argument Of this cause 90,
concluded BY Mr.. Balance, Of counsel for II n.,n'
tif In error, and submitted printed <u,,n, ~.
Mr. Gondy, Of counsel for the defend mt IN srrrs
No o.. AIslie ssnlst, widow Of Louis Fouoh.,
Of al, plaintiff. In error, vs.. R. y. sherhs,d Th,
argument Of this cause was comr,.no.d H. NJ
Janiu Of counsel for the plaip,iFs IN s,v ~ vi ,
submitted on printed ar.uD,. ent by Mr. i Mo.an
Campbell, Of counsel tst defendant in errot "''O'
5aJourned Ti until tS'eIorrow at II oolook
NJ ne D0'"T'g q John b. R,oVd n, S,c,,,,r,, n
War-P0",sTS 6fthat Ssrs,,tarv ,rSs IVe,fSa,yV IVe,f:yV
haGn'1G"f-W'HraRt II. DE- Groot. a,p.jts,,t ,o, %,
O. Jmned Sddtsi.-Tbis suit was instituted In The
1n OF OiS.ms to recover the sum Of $ll9, ,256. 49,
gSins We amount awarded to him by John B.
foJ d, then seorstary Of WA- under the provisions
4 1860, ~
y In January, 1854, the United States, through
r. Capt Meigs, entered into o contract with Drgges
n d Smith to furnish all the bricks which might be
g required for the construction Of the Washington
Z Aqueiuct, snd Messrs. Alexander 4 Mechlin be.
came their sureties. Drigges a Smith failed to
perform their contract and Alexander 4 Mechlin,
to protect themselves, agreed with the present
\ claimant TO go on and complete the contract. He
. also failed, and they then employed another party;
but the repeated failures induced Congress TO put
n an end to the delays oooasioned thereby by joint
resolution terminating the contracts, which was ap-
proved in March, 1851
!, In April following all the contracting parties
who had had anything to do with the job accepted
the proposition contained in the resolution and ex.
!. ocuted the deed Of surrender required by It, Tho
Secretary Of the Treasury adjusted the claims Of
each. and the claimant in this case then accepted
\. S,576 as the amount coming to himi but becoming
a dissatisfied he appealed TO Congress and finally
ceeded in June, 1850 In getting joint resolution
passed for his benefit This resolution authorized
!, the Secretary Of War. Mr.. Floyd, to settle this
claim on principles Of equity and justice. Accord.
: ingly in August 1860, that officer made the follow.
ing award In De Groot's favor: "Allowed for the
improvement Of his briokworks, (which was sur
rendered to the Government under the resolution
, brick delivered under the contract, $2s, ,s523 81"
From these sums the amount the claimant had
actually received from the Secretary Of the Treas
ury on the contract was deducted, leaving the
amount now In suit first above quoted.
This award, for some undisolosed reason, not
having been paid Congress, in February 1851, re-
pealed the joint resolution authorizing the Secre-
, taTy Of War to make the award, and directed the
claim to be transmitted to the Court Of Claims for
adjudication. This was done in consequence Of
suspicious which then arose as to Floyd's Official
conduct. On the trial In that court the claimant
relied exclusively upon the award made by the Sec.
, retary Of War, and offered other evidence.
The following conclusions upon the facts were
thereupon certified to this court
r |. That by including In the award the value or
price OF the real estate upon which the brickyard
was located, Floyd exceeded the powers conferred
upon him by the joint resolution of Congress, re-
| quiring the surrender Of the briokyard.
2. That having commingled each allowance with
, the general finding in such manner to be In
capable Of separation, 1t thereby vtiatsd the whole
award.
8. That Floyd also exceeded bis authority In al.
lowing the claimant for prospective profits on the
surrendered contract, when the joint resolution, by
spirit and terms, contemplated and authorized only
the allowance of compensation for accrued and
, past damages.
4. Floyd having thus exceeded the powers con.
ferred upon him, II competent for Congress to
disaffrm his acts and revoke the authority con-
ferred upon him. by repeal of the resolution un.
der which he acted.
, 5. No sufficient evidence having been given to
sustain any part Of the claim, Irrespective Of
Floyd's award, and that being held invalid judg.
! ment must be rendered for the United States.
The questions to be decided are, therefore, wheth.
or under the joint resolution Of Congress- the Sec
rotary OF War became an arbitrator as between the
= parties? If so, did the award made by him, OF.
ceed the terms Of the submission embraced in the
: resolution Had Congress the power, after the
publication of the award, to repeal the resolution
and send the to the Court Of Claims? The
Government takes tho Affirmative and the claimant
the negative Of these propositions. Tho claimant,
however, agrees and argues that it an award.
! @. p. Howe and D. d, Field for claimant, Z. P.
( Norton and J. J. Weed for United States.
: CIRCUIT CoURT-Judge Cdrtter.-Morrison
Z Shaw VS.. George Wheeler. Judgment on award
Of referee.
WI II. Mack VS.. Kesss 4 Kay. Motion of