Case: HENRY W. BLAGGE AND SUSAN B. SAMUELS, ADMINISTRATORS, Plaintiffs in Error, v. FRANCIS V. BALCH, Administrator; WILLIAM GRAY BROOKS, Administrator of the Estate of Henry Gray, y. ROBERT CODMAN, Administrator Etc., of William Gray the Elder, ET AL.; AUGUSTUS R. S. FOOTE AND JOHN S. FOOTE, Plaintiffs in Error, v. WOMEN'S BOARD OF MISSIONS ET AL.
Abbreviation: Blagge v. Balch
Decision Date: 1896-04-13
Docket Number: 
Citation: 31 Ct. Cl. 460
Volume: 31
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: HENRY W. BLAGGE AND SUSAN B. SAMUELS, ADMINISTRATORS, Plaintiffs in Error, v. FRANCIS V. BALCH, Administrator. WILLIAM GRAY BROOKS, Administrator of the Estate of Henry Gray, y. ROBERT CODMAN, Administrator Etc., of William Gray the Elder, ET AL. AUGUSTUS R. S. FOOTE AND JOHN S. FOOTE, Plaintiffs in Error, v. WOMEN’S BOARD OF MISSIONS ET AL.
Judges: 
Pages: 460–461

Head Matter:
HENRY W. BLAGGE AND SUSAN B. SAMUELS, ADMINISTRATORS, Plaintiffs in Error, v. FRANCIS V. BALCH, Administrator. WILLIAM GRAY BROOKS, Administrator of the Estate of Henry Gray, y. ROBERT CODMAN, Administrator Etc., of William Gray the Elder, ET AL. AUGUSTUS R. S. FOOTE AND JOHN S. FOOTE, Plaintiffs in Error, v. WOMEN’S BOARD OF MISSIONS ET AL.
[In error to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.]
[In error to the superior court, county of New Haven, State of Connecticut.]
(162 U. S. R., 439.)
These cases came up from the Supreme Court of Massachusetts and the Superior Court of the county of New Haven, Conn. The cases presented questions as to the rights of beneficiaries under the French spoliation act and the act in addition thereto, March 3,1891. The principal question presented was whether Congress recognized in these statutes a legal vested right in the original claimants, or whether Congress recognized the obligation of the Government as moral and equitable, and intended to exercise the power of giving relief to the parties morally and equitably entitled to it, viz, the descendants now living of the original sufferers.
After quoting with approval the decision of the Court of Claims in Buchanan’s Case (24 O. Gis. R,, 74), where it was held that the court will not “ determine what persons are legally or equitably entitled to receive the money which Congress may hereafter appropriate for the discharge of these claims,” and that “ the decisions [of the Court of Claims] in these spoliation cases are not judgments which judicially fix the rights of any person, and the obligations of the Government are so far moral and political that they can not be gauged by the fixed rules of municipal law,” the Supreme Court holds—
“That Congress intended that the next of kin of the original sufferers, capable of taking at the time of distribution, should be the beneficiaries in every case to the exclusion of creditors, legatees, and assignees, strangers to the blood.”
And that the French spoliation act, 1885, and the appropriation act, 1891, created no legal, vested right, but reserved in Congress the final determination as to what relief should be granted and to whom, and thereby brought the payments prescribed by the latter statute within the category of payments made to discharge moral and equitable obligations; that is, as payments made as of grace and not of legal right.
The decisions of the courts below were reversed for further proceedings.
April 13, 1896.

Opinion:
The Chief Justice
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court