Case: THE WINCHESTER AND POTOMAC RAILROAD COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Winchester & Potomac Railroad v. United States
Decision Date: 1896-05-18
Docket Number: 
Citation: 31 Ct. Cl. 450
Volume: 31
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: THE WINCHESTER AND POTOMAC RAILROAD COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: Mr. Justice Shibas dissented.
Pages: 450–450

Head Matter:
THE WINCHESTER AND POTOMAC RAILROAD COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES.
(27 C. Cls. R., 163; U. S. R., 244.)
On the defendant’s Appeal.
At the close oí tlae civil war the War Department offers to return, railroads in the South to the owners on certain conditions, subject to the approval of the Secretary, “all rolling stoolc and material to be given up to these roads ” The claimant complies with the conditions, and the road is accordingly turned over. Some material belonging to it is not turned over, bxrt sold. The claimant’s president applies for the return of the material before sale by a personal application to the Secretary of War. Subsequently a formal claim for the money is filed.
The court below decides—
1. The offer of the War Department, in 1865, to turn over the Southern railroads to their owners with “all rolling stoolc and material,’’ when complied with and carried into effect must be regarded as a contract.
2. Where material belonging to a road was casually sold after the road had been turned over to the company, an action will lie to recover the money.
3. When it appears by the records of an Executive Dexiartment that a claim referred under the Revised Statutes, § 1063, was presented to the Department within six years, though in an informal manner, it is not barred. (Rev. Stat., $ 1069.)
4. The absence of an appropriation out of which iiayment can be made is no defense to a valid claim.
The decision of the court below is reversed, on the ground that the claim is a “War claim” within the meaning of the act of March 3,1887, and that the Court of Claims is without jurisdiction to hear it.
May 18, 1896.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court,
Mr. Justice Shibas dissented.