Dickson v. District of Columbia
United States Court of Claims
The following are the facts found by the court: I. The claimant is the bona fide holder and owner of four certificates, duly issued by the Board of Public Works of the District of Columbia, each for $100, each duly indorsed, and ■each of the form following : Ho. —.] - [.$100. Board of Public Works, Washington, D. C., April — , 187 This is to certify that for work done under tho Board of Public Works •of the District of Columbia, agreeably to acts of the Congress of the…
Read the full summary
The following are the facts found by the court: I. The claimant is the bona fide holder and owner of four certificates, duly issued by the Board of Public Works of the District of Columbia, each for $100, each duly indorsed, and ■each of the form following : Ho. —.] - [.$100. Board of Public Works, Washington, D. C., April — , 187 This is to certify that for work done under tho Board of Public Works •of the District of Columbia, agreeably to acts of the Congress of the United States and of the legislative assembly of the said District, there is due W. A. Wilson the sum of one hundred dollars.…
1Opinion of the Court 1
OPINION.
2Opinion of the Court · DavisDavis, J.
The defendant admits that if the court has jurisdiction the claimant has made out a good case for a recovery on the facts. It contends that this suit is brought under that clause of the District act which gives the court jurisdiction over “ all certificates of the auditor of said Board of Public Works.” In the counsel’s brief it is said: .
The certificates of .the auditor intended by the act are well known to the court, and the form of one of them is set out in the opinion of the court in the case of Neuchatel Company v. The District of Colunibia (17 C. Cls. R., 394), and differs…
3Cases cited2 opinions
- Fendall v. District of ColumbiaUnited States Court of Claims · 1880
- Neuchatel Paving Co. v. District of ColumbiaUnited States Court of Claims · 1881