Gonzales y Garcia v. United States
United States Court of Claims
The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The claimants, José Gonzales y Garcia and Pedro Gonzales, as partners, on the 1st day of August, 1881, received from Nester Armijo 4,000 sheep. Under their contract they were to pay Armijo 2 pounds of wool per sheep per year, and at the end of a given term were to return to Armijo the same number of sheep that were originally received from him. II.
Read the full summary
The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The claimants, José Gonzales y Garcia and Pedro Gonzales, as partners, on the 1st day of August, 1881, received from Nester Armijo 4,000 sheep. Under their contract they were to pay Armijo 2 pounds of wool per sheep per year, and at the end of a given term were to return to Armijo the same number of sheep that were originally received from him. II. The claimants José Gonzales y Garcia and Juan Gonzales, as partners, about July 20, 1880, received from Miguel Fischer, 3,550 ewes, under an…
1Opinion of the CourtWeldon, J.
The finding's of fact in this case show that the claimant, Jose Gonzales y Garcia, Pedro Gonzales, and Juan Gonzales were partners in a large flock of sheep which were held by them in the count}' of Socorro, in the Territory of New Mexico, in August, 1881, and while they were in possession of such sheep the defendant Indians made a raid and took and carried away a large number of the flock. The sheep at the time of the depredation were in the joint possession and under the joint control of the said parties.
This suit was commenced within the limitation of three years from the 4th day of March,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Sturm v. BokerSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Vanderbilt v. AdamsNew York Supreme Court · 1827
- Thomas's administrator v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1879
- Little v. District of ColumbiaUnited States Court of Claims · 1884
3Cited by1 opinion
- Tyler v. DavisIndiana Court of Appeals · 1906