Dunbar v. United States
United States Court of Claims
The Reporters’ statement of the case: The grounds of the motion are stated in the opinion of the court. 1. The Committee of the Senate on Claims concluded that the agreement was valid, and so reported on March 2,1866. Two Committees of the Senate on Military Affairs reached the same conclusion, and so reported at subsequent dates. The claimant asserted it by bringing his suit in 1871 in this court for damages, on account of the very breach now complained of.
Read the full summary
The Reporters’ statement of the case: The grounds of the motion are stated in the opinion of the court. 1. The Committee of the Senate on Claims concluded that the agreement was valid, and so reported on March 2,1866. Two Committees of the Senate on Military Affairs reached the same conclusion, and so reported at subsequent dates. The claimant asserted it by bringing his suit in 1871 in this court for damages, on account of the very breach now complained of. The Government admitted it by pleading to the merits. The court adjudicated it by dismissing claimant’s petition because more than six…
1Opinion of the Court
Weldon, <7.,
delivered the opinion of the court:
In this case the defendants make a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction.
*112The ground relied on to sustain the motion is, that this court had jurisdiction of the claim under Eevised Statutes, section 1059, in that clause which provides that the court shall have jurisdiction “ upon any contract, express or implied, with the Government of the United States.” If the contention of the defendants be true the objection is well taken, and the motion should be sustained.
The subject-matter of this claim has been before this court in two proceedings,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Williams v. Department of HighwaysWest Virginia Court of Claims · 1977
- Dunbar v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1884
- Dunbar v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1884
- Parsons v. Division of HighwaysWest Virginia Court of Claims · 1996
3Cited by1 opinion
- Forehand v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1888