Case Name: GEORGE H. DOBYNS v. THE UNITED STATES
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1884-04-28
Citations: 19 Ct. Cl. 494
Docket Number: Congressional No. 39
Parties: GEORGE H. DOBYNS v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Volume: 19
Pages: 494–496

Head Matter:
GEORGE H. DOBYNS v. THE UNITED STATES.
[Congressional No. 39.
Decided April 28, 1884.]
On the Facts.
A claim is transmitted to this court by a committee of the House of Representatives, under the Bowman Act. The claimant appears and prosecutes. ' The defendants show that his claim was allowed and paid ten years before tho bringing of the action. His attorneys ask leave to withdraw the petition.
If it appear in a case transmitted to this court by a committee of Congress, ■ under the Bowman Act, that the claim has in fact been paid, leave will not be granted to the claimant to withdraw his petition, nor will the court on his motion dismiss the case, which will be reported to the committee, as required by the act. (22 Stat. L., p. 485, § 1, ch. 116.)
The Reporters’ statement of the case:
This, it may be noted, was the first report to Congress under the recent statute “ to afford assistance and relief to Congress in the investigation of claims and demands against the United States,” commonly called the Bowman Act..
The claimant’s motion to withdraw his petition will be found in the following findings of fact filed by the court:
The claimant presented to Congress a petition setting out that while he was assistant quartermaster of the United States Army suit was brought against him in his official capacity, and that he employed counsel to defend said suit, to whom he actually paid $1,000, which sum he claimed should be refunded to him.
The petition was referred by the House of Eepresentatives, January 25,1884, to the Committee on Military Affairs, and by that committee, on the 27th of February, the claim was transmitted to this court, under the provision of the first section of the act of March 3,1883, chapter 116 (22 Stat. L., 485), commonly called the Bowman Act.
On the 31st of March, 1884, the claimant, by his attorneys, filed in this court his petition, more fully setting out his claim, and the facts and circumstances connected therewith, as required by the rules of the court.
On the 5th of April, 1884, by virtue of the power conferred by section 1076 of the Eevised Statutes, -and at the request of the claimant’s attorneys, the court made a call upon the War Department for information and papers in relation thereto.
On the 19th of April, 1884, the Attorney-General, by his assistant, filed a general traverse, denying each and every allegation contained in the petition.
On the 21st of April, 1884, the Secretary of War made his return to said call, from which it appears that the original papers had been transmitted from the War Department to the Second Auditor of the Treasury for settlement February 18, 1874, and that the amount allowed, $944.84, was paid to Captain Dobyns, February 20,1874.
On the 24th of April the claimant’s attorneys filed the following motion:
“George H. Dobyns ) “ v. S- Cong. Case No. 39. “The United States. ?
“ Now comes C. D. Pennebaker & Son, attorneys, and say that they filed the petition in this cause in good faith, believ ing that claimant had ajust demand against the United States: that information has just come to them that the claim on which this cause is based was paid by the Government in 1874. Wherefore they ask leave to withdraw the petition and move the court that the cause be dismissed. On behalf of the claimant, Dobyns, they state that he has been recently paralyzed and may be an imbecile.
“O. D. Pennebaker & Son.
“April 24, 1884.”
G. D. Pennebaker <& Son for the motion.
Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Simons appeared for the defendants.

Opinion:
By the court:
Now, on this 28th of April, 1884, the court overrules the claimant's motion for leave to withdraw his petition and for dismissal of the case, and orders that the facts be reported to the Committee on Military Affairs of the House of Bepresentatives (by whom the claim was transmitted to this court), as required by the act of March 3,1883, chapter 116, section 1.
For a similar case see that of Davis v. The United States (10 C. Cls. R., 285). The claim there sued upon had been reported favorably by the Committee on Revolutionary Claims of the House of Representatives of two Congresses, and a bill for its payment had been passed by the House, but was not reached in the Senate and so never became a law. After suit was brought in this court it was discovered, through investigations «made by the Attorney-General's assistants, that the claim had long previously been paid, and a receipt to that effect was produced in court.
A committee of Congress could not well have ascertained the fact of payment, as no fraud was suspected and none, indeed, was intended.