Case: JOSEPH C. IRWIN & CO. AND CHARLES A. PERRY & CO. v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Joseph C. Irwin & Co. v. United States
Decision Date: 1888-04-23
Docket Number: 127 U. S. R., 125
Citation: 23 Ct. Cl. 500
Volume: 23
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: JOSEPH C. IRWIN & CO. AND CHARLES A. PERRY & CO. v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Pages: 500–500

Head Matter:
JOSEPH C. IRWIN & CO. AND CHARLES A. PERRY & CO. v. THE UNITED STATES.
(23 C. Cls. R., 149; 127 U. S. R., 125.)
On the defendants’ Appeal.
In 1857 Colonel Albert Sidney Johnston stops the claimants trains and forbids their passing into Utah, then in rebellion. Congress subsequently x>ass an act giving relief “ for property claimed to have been talcen and impressed,” and referring the claim to this court “for adjudication according to law,” “ and report the same to Congress.”
The court below decides:
(1) Where a private act directs both an “ adjtalicátíon according io law” and that the court “ report the same to Congress,” it will bo held that a final judgment must be rendered and in due course bo reported to-Congress as are other judgments of the court. (Act 8th July, 1886,. Stat. L., p. 128.)
(2) Every judgment of this court is reported to Congress under Eevised St atutes (§ 1057), but such reports are only a method of informing the legislative body of the public debts found to be due.
(3) Where a military officer during the Utah campaign in 1857 stopped the claimants’ trains, force l them into his column, placed them under military discipline, and made direct use of some of 1 he property for the benefit of the Army, it will be held that tho loss of animals incident to tho delay was a loss arising from tho impressment of the trains into tho public service.
(4) Wh ero a private act refer# a claim to this court “on the proofs heretofore presented, and such other proofs as may he adduced,” it will be held that letters and papers before Congress, though not admissible under the ordinary law of evidence, may be considered.
The decision of the court below is affirmed on the question of jurisdiction and the right to enter judgment, bat reversed on the ground that the statute conferring jurisdiction did not authorize the court to give judgment for losses arising from mere detention and delay of claimants’ trains.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Matthews
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court April 23, 1888.