Valk v. United States
United States Court of Claims
The Reporters’ statement of die case: The following are the facts as found by the court: I. In 1856 the claimant, James S. Valk and Moritz Valk (since deceased), were copartners, under the firm name of Moritz Valk & Bro., residing and in the business of mining for gold and silver at Gold Beach, in Oregon, at the time the depredations hereinafter mentioned were committed. II. Said Valks were both aliens at that time, being subjects of the King of Hanover.
Read the full summary
The Reporters’ statement of die case: The following are the facts as found by the court: I. In 1856 the claimant, James S. Valk and Moritz Valk (since deceased), were copartners, under the firm name of Moritz Valk & Bro., residing and in the business of mining for gold and silver at Gold Beach, in Oregon, at the time the depredations hereinafter mentioned were committed. II. Said Valks were both aliens at that time, being subjects of the King of Hanover. Thereafter said Moritz Valk was admitted to be a citizen of the United States of America by the court of common pleas for the city and…
1Opinion of the Court
Richardson, Ch. J.,
delivered the opinion of the court:
The facts in this case as now presented differ from those found on the former trial (27 C. Cls. R., 241) only in one particular. Finding n shows that the claimants at the time the depredations were committed were subjects of the King of Hanover, and were entitled to all the rights and privileges acquired by the treaty between the United States and the King of that country, A. D. 1847. (Treaties and Conventions between the United States and'other powers from July 4, 1776, to 1887, p. 523.)
As to the law arising upon the other facts in the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Seymour v. OsborneSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Dryden v. SwinburneWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1882
- Lanz v. RandallU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota · 1876
- Marks v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1893
- George v. Division of HighwaysWest Virginia Court of Claims · 2009
3Cited by4 opinions
- Painter v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1897
- Cox v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1894
- McCollum ex rel. McCollum v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1898
- Validity of Congressional-Executive Agreements That Substantially Modify the United States' Obligations Under an Existing Treaty, Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel1996