Case: JOSHUA BISHOP v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Bishop v. United States
Decision Date: 1886-03-29
Docket Number: No. 14710
Citation: 21 Ct. Cl. 215
Volume: 21
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: JOSHUA BISHOP v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Pages: 215–215

Head Matter:
JOSHUA BISHOP v. THE UNITED STATES.
[No. 14710.
Decided March 29, 1886.]
On the Proofs.
The claimant is an officer on the Minnesota, a training-ship stationed in the harbor of New York, hot cruising occasionally and seaworthy, and capable of a protracted cruise.
The court reiterates the principles laid down in the case of Symonds (ante).
The Reporters’ statement of the case :
The court found the following distinctive fact, otherwise the case was identical with that of Symonds (ante):
The U. S. S. Minnesota is one of the training-ships of the United States Navy, and has been such for more than ten years last past. She has been since the time this claim accrued stationed in New York Harbor, and cruises and moves about under her own power. Her machinery and equipment are kept in perfect order, and she is perfectly seaworthy, and could at any time, if so ordered, within the time allowed vessels of her class, be in readiness to start upon a protracted cruise.
Mr. John Paul Jones and R. B. IAnes for the claimant.
Mr. P. P. Dewees for the defendants.

Opinion:
Weldon, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court:
This case, embracing' as it does substantially the same facts as the case of Symonds, was submitted in connection with that case.
In the Symonds Case (ante) it was insisted that the ship was not in a condition to perform all the duties of sea service, and therefore could not in law be engaged in that service, but in this case the character and condition of the ship eliminates that question as a point in controversy. The court having in the Symonds Case adjudicated principles of law which embrace in legal effect the facts of this case, it is the judgment of the court that the petitioner recover from the defendants the sum of $816.58.