Forehand v. United States
United States Court of Claims
The Reporters’ statement of the case: This claim was transmitted to the court by the Committee on Claims of the Senate on the 10th day of January, 1884, under the Bowman Act. A motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction was argued and submitted with the case upon the merits. The facts relating to jurisdiction are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtDavis, J.
This is a reference under the Bowman Act of a claim for alleged infringement of a patent for cartridges, and the only question of law presented is whether the claim is u barred by virtue of the provisions of any law of the United States” (22 Stat. L., 485.) If so barred, this court is without jurisdiction to find the facts in aid of the Senate committee which sends the matter to us, as the case would then fall within the express exclusion of section 3 of the Act of 1883 (Dunbar’s Case, 22 C. Cls. R., 109). On the other hand, “ if it be true that the claimant had no cause of action at any time…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Hollister v. Benedict & Burnham Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1885
- United States v. Great Falls Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Dahlgren v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1880
- Pacific Submarine & Earthquake Proof Wall Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1884
- Solomons v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1887
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Berdan Fire-Arms Manufacturing Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1890
- Schillinger v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1889
- McSorley v. FaulknerNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1892