Truitt v. United States
United States Court of Claims
The Reporters’ statement of the case: The attorneys for the United States first procured an order for the examination for the claimant. This order the claimant’s attorneys moved to vacate and set aside. The motion was sent to the Law Calendar and fully argued upon the right of the Government to the order first granted. No reason can be conceived why the provisions of section 1080 should be omitted in the Indian depredation cases.
Read the full summary
The Reporters’ statement of the case: The attorneys for the United States first procured an order for the examination for the claimant. This order the claimant’s attorneys moved to vacate and set aside. The motion was sent to the Law Calendar and fully argued upon the right of the Government to the order first granted. No reason can be conceived why the provisions of section 1080 should be omitted in the Indian depredation cases. Of all the cases within the jurisdiction of the court there are none in which the provisions of section 1080 are more necessary for the ends of justice. Cases…
1Opinion of the Court
Richardson, Oh. J.,
delivered the opinion of the court:
A motion is made under Revised Statutes, section 1080, by the attorney on behalf of the United States, for an order directing the claimant to appear, upon reasonable notice, before a commissioner of the court, and be examined on oath touching matters pertaining to the claim set up in this case.
“Sec. 1080. The court may, at the instance of the attorney or solicitor appearing in behalf of the United States, make an *25order in any case pending therein, directing any claimant in such case to appear, upon reasonable notice, before any…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Jones v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1865
- Macauley v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
3Cited by1 opinion
- Atlantic Works v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1914