Basch v. United States
United States Court of Claims
The Reporter’s statement of the case The facts of the case are sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the court. The books of account if regularly kept and admissible under the rules of evidence would not be proof of ownership of the parties at the time the cotton was taken; they would at the most be corroborative evidence to show dealings of the parties or like matters. However, they are inadmissible for any purpose whatever.
Read the full summary
The Reporter’s statement of the case The facts of the case are sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the court. The books of account if regularly kept and admissible under the rules of evidence would not be proof of ownership of the parties at the time the cotton was taken; they would at the most be corroborative evidence to show dealings of the parties or like matters. However, they are inadmissible for any purpose whatever. The Government accepts the Treasury reports as evidence of everything they state as a fact, but does not accept them for what they do not profess to state. Where they…
1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, Chief Justice
The plaintiff sues, as surviving receiver of the Importing & Exporting Company of the State of Georgia, to recover the net proceeds in the Treasury of the United States of the sale of a large amount of cotton which it is alleged was taken from said company, or its officers in charge and control of it, subsequent to June 1, 1865. Recovery is sought under the provisions of section 162 of the Judicial Code, which was enacted in 1911 and reads as follows:
“ Sec. 162. The Court of Claims shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine claims of those whose property was taken subsequent to June the…
2Cases cited42 opinions
- Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
- United States v. KleinSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Continental Wall Paper Co. v. Louis Voight & Sons Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1909
- United States v. RossSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- D. R. Wilder Manufacturing Co. v. Corn Products Refining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1915
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.