Case: WILLIAM G. FORD, Administrator or John G. Robinson, v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Ford v. United States
Decision Date: 1886-01-04
Docket Number: 
Citation: 21 Ct. Cl. 496
Volume: 21
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: WILLIAM G. FORD, Administrator or John G. Robinson, v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Pages: 496–497

Head Matter:
WILLIAM G. FORD, Administrator or John G. Robinson, v. THE UNITED STATES.
(20 C. Cls. R., 487; 116 U. S. R., 213.)
On the claimant’8 Appeal.
The Senate refers to this court, under the Revised Statutes, section 1059, a claim for the proceeds of captured cotton.
The court below decides—
(1.) Either of the houses of Congress may confer upon this court jurisdiction of a claim for the proceeds of captured property, hut the claim veill not constitute a legal cause of action unless jurisdiction he conferred hy statute.
(2.) In any case where a claim for money is before Congress, either house may refer it for adjudication, under Revised Statutes, section 1059; and jurisdiction in the four classes of cases specified in that section is equally well established.
(3.) The statute authorizing either house to refer claims to this court is a consent that the United States may be sued in cases so referred.
(4.) The Statute of Limitations (Rev. Stát., § 1069) does not preclude jurisdiction of a captured property case referred by the Senate under Revised Statutes, section 1059.
(5.) There is a difference between the transmission of a petition by the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House under Revised Statutes, section 1060, and a formal reference of a claim by the Senate or House under section 1059.
(6.) The bar prescribed by the statute of limitations is not jurisdictional, for the statute also prescribes 'exceptions whereby a case may be taken out of its limitations.
(7.) There is no inconsistency between the Revised Statutes, section 1059, and the Bowman Act; the two were enacted for entirely different objects; they confer different jurisdictions, and the latter does not repeal the former.
(8.) The reference of a claim by one of the houses of Congress confers jurisdiction, but creates no new cause of action, and no legal right, save that of making the Government defendant in a judicial tribunal.
(9.) The private acts (18 Stat. L., 606; 19 id., 509) referring cotton cases to this court did, by direct or indirect reference to the Abandoned or Captured Property Act (12 Stat. L., 820), declare the policy of the Government as to the claims so referred, and thereby conferred the same legal right that was created by the original statute.
The decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, January 4,1886.