Case Name: DAVID H. HALL v. THE UNITED STATES
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1892-06-27
Citations: 27 Ct. Cl. 438
Docket Number: 8131
Parties: DAVID H. HALL v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Volume: 27
Pages: 438–439

Head Matter:
DAVID H. HALL v. THE UNITED STATES.
[Congressional,
8131.
Decided June 27, 1892.]
On the claimant’s Motion.
It appears that a corresponding claim was presented to the Quartermaster-General, that he found the claimant loyal and aEowed the claim upon the merits, and that his award was paid by Congress.
Where it appears that a claimant never resided in a place wherein “the rebel force or organisation held sway” (Iiev. Stat., § 1044) and was found loyal by an officer charged with the duty of ascertaining that fact, and Congress gave effect to his award, the facts constitute a prima facie case of loyalty.
The Reporters'1 statement of the case:
This case was submitted on the preliminary question of loyalty upon the facts appearing on the record. They appear in the opinion of the court.
Mr. O. D. Pennebalcer for the claimant.
Mr. John 0. Ohrney (with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Cotton) for the defendants.

Opinion:
Nott, J.,
delivered the opinion of tbe court:
This is a claim for commissary supplies. On the part of neither party has any evidence been produced.
The claimant relies upon these facts: A corresponding claim for quartermaster stores was presented to the Quartermaster-General. The claimant was found loyal by that officer; his claim was allowed upon the merits; it was audited at the Treasury, and the award was accepted and paid by Congress. (Act 19th October, 1888, 25 Stat. L., p. 1236.)
To this the counsel for the defendants replies that the findings of the Quartermaster-General in a case before him do not constitute an adjudication upon the fact of loyalty, and that the Government is not bound by that officer's decision.
It is undoubtedly true that the decision of an executive officer in the ordinary discharge of his official duty has not the judicial element of finality and does not render the question res judicata. Nevertheless, where a claimant, as in this case, never resided in a place where "the rebel force or organization held sway" (Rev. Stat., sec. 1074), and was found loyal by an officer charged with the duty of ascertaining that fact, and the legislative branch of the Government was satisfied with his decision and gave effect to his award, the court does not feel at liberty to wholly disregard the acts and proceedings of two branches of the Government upon the same question, and must hold that these facts constitute a prima facie case of loyalty.
There being no proofs to the contrary, the claimant is entitled to have his loyalty found in this proceeding, and it is found.