Brown v. District of Columbia
United States Court of Claims
The Reporters’ statemeut of the case: Three of these cases were consolidated and brought to a hearing. After the trial had proceeded seven days, it appeared to the court that there were still two outstanding cases founded on the transactions of the same assignor, and that he was not a party to any of these proceedings. The trial was thereupon suspended. The involved facts elicited will be found in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtRichardson, J.
Each of these five cases was commenced as an action at law by the claimant (one of them by two claimants in severalty), as assignee of one Frank H. Finley, who had several contracts with the District of Columbia, through the.board of public *304works or the Commissioners of the District. Finley was not a party to either of said cases.
On the 23d of May, 1881, the court made the following order as to the first- three cases, the last, two not having then been called to its-attention:
“ Ordered, That the suit of Francis Prott vs. the District of Columbia, No. 161, and that of Thomas A. Brown and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Figh v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1872
3Cited by9 opinions
- Cape Ann Granite Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1885
- Little v. District of ColumbiaUnited States Court of Claims · 1884
- Hammond v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1942
- Georgia Wholesale Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1936
- Peterson v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1890
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.