Case: DAVID P. ELDRIDGE, Administrator, v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Eldridge v. United States
Decision Date: 1891-04-06
Docket Number: French Spoliations 113
Citation: 26 Ct. Cl. 253
Volume: 26
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: DAVID P. ELDRIDGE, Administrator, v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Pages: 253–254

Head Matter:
DAVID P. ELDRIDGE, Administrator, v. THE UNITED STATES.
[French Spoliations 113.
Decided April 6, 1891.]
On the claimant’s Motion.
In the case of the Ship Joanna the facts are reported to Congress, showing that an original owner, whom the present claimant assumes to represent, suffered loss and is entitled to indemnity. An award is made hy Congress (see preceding case of Adams.) The claimant moves for a certificate that he represents the next of kin on the record of the prohate court granting administration.
I. The record of a probate court granting administration is not sufficient to establish the fact that the present claimant, an administrator, represents the next of kin of the person on whose behalf an award has been made within the intent of the Act 3d March, 1891, (26 Stat. L., 908). The record must be supplemented by depositions and the United States have an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.
II. A deposition taken on the trial may be used on the application for a certificate.
The Reporters’ statement of the case:
The following is the motion of the claimant in this proceeding:
And now comes the undersigned, attorney for the administrator in the above-named case, and moves the court to certify to the Secretary of the Treasury that the administrator above named, on whose behalf an award was made by this court in said case, represents the next of kin of said deceased, and in form as is required by the proviso to an act approved March 3, 1891, entitled “An act making appropriations to supply the deficiencies in the appropriations for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and ninety-one, and for prior years, and for other purposes; ” and 'in support of this motion reference is made to the depositions of Mary H. Eldridge, filed in No. 118.
Mr. George 8. Boutwell for the motion.
Mr. Alexander G. Moore (with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Cotton) opposed.

Opinion:
Pee. curiam :
It is not shown b.y competent and sufficient evidence herein that the plaintiff in fact represents the next of kin of Sylvanus Macy, deceased. The record of the probate court granting administration is not sufficient to establish the fact required by the statute, and must be supplemented by a deposition or depositions, at the taking of which the United States shall have an opportunity to cross-examine the witness or witnesses. If such a deposition has already been filed in connection with the proof heretofore required of identity it will be considered and may be sufficient.