Case Name: Ward, executor of Nahum Ward, v. The United States
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1865-10
Citations: 1 Ct. Cl. 360
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ward, executor of Nahum Ward, v. The United States.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 360–373

Head Matter:
WARD’S CASE.
Ward, executor of Nahum Ward, v. The United States.
On the Proofs.
The Continental Congress resolved to borrow $13,000,000 on loan office certificates, countersigned by the commissioners of the loan office, and a loan office is to be established in each State. The loan certificates in suit are signed by the Continental Treasurer; they are indorsed “ countersigned by order of J. A. Treutlin, governor of Georgia, E. Davies, jr. " Thegovcrnment has paid four years' interestupon some of the bonds. Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury, has reported to Congress that there is no evidence of the appointment of E. Davies, jr., as loan commissioner, or that he was ever hnoion or reputed to have acted in that capacity. Some similar bonds have been found marhed “ cancelled" by the Treasury Department.
A party who brings an action on a loan-office certificate relying upon it alone, stands just as does tlie holder of a promissory note who sues upon the note alone; he must prove the certificate to be valid.
The loau-offi.ee certificates authorized by the Continental Congress, February 22, 1777, must be countersigned by a loan commissioner to be valid.
A certificate countersigned by one who professes to act by authority of the governor of Georgia, and who does not profess to be a loan commissioner for the State of Georgia, and who is not known nor reputed to have acted as such, raises no presumption that it is legally countersigned.
A payment of interest by the government does not raise such a presumption.
Mr. Thomas Ewing for claimant.
Mr. J.-J. Weed, Assistant Solicitor, for the goverñment.

Opinion:
Nott, J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This action was commenced in this court under its former organization, and prosecuted to a hearing. The court was divided in opinion, but the majority found in favor of the claimant, and reported to Congress a bill for his relief in the sum of $60,870 99, February 2, 1857.
While the bill was pending- before Congress, Nahum Ward died. His will was duly admitted to probate before the judge of probate iu Washington county, Ohio, by virtue whereof the claimant appears as his executor. At the first session of the thirty-eighth Congress a joint resolution was passed referring back the claim to this court under its present reorganization, with the proviso that the court shall allow no larger amount than the sum heretofore allowed.
We are of the opinion that the claimant cannot recover ; but as the questions involved are elaborately discussed in the dissenting opinion of Judge Blackford, we place our decision upon that opinion and adopt it as the opinion of this court now.
The judgment of the court is that the petition be dismissed.