
    PATTERSON’S CASE. Richard L. Patterson v. The United States.
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    
      The claimant sues upon a quartermaster’s califícate that there have been received from his farm in Virginia, during the rebellion, certain supplies, to be accounted for on the property returns of the quartermaster, and for which the owner will be paid after the suppression of the rebellion, upon proof that from that date he has conducted himself as a loyal citizen. The claimant does not prove that he parted with his property on the faith of the certificate, but, on the contrary, the evidence indicates that the property zeas taken forcibly, and the certificate subsequently given. Only one witness is called to prove loyalty, and his testimony is chiefly negative. The petition sets forth the cause of action, but asks, no relief.
    
    I. It is a fatal objection to a recovery that the petition asks for no relief, as required by the rules of this court.
    II. The testimony of a single witness, negative in its character, is not satisfactory proof of loyalty, where theclairuant voluntarily resided during- the rebellion within the insurrectionary districts, and had friends and neighbors who might understandingly testify as to his conduct during the war.
    III. The Court of Claims has not jurisdiction of an action founded upon a quartern!aster’s certificate given for property previously taken from the claimant’s farm in Virginia during the rebellion, though it expressly agrees that tlie claimant shall he paid after the suppression of the rebellion, if he conduct himself as a loyal citizou. Such a taking comes under the Act July 4, 1864, (13 Stat. L., p. 381,) relative to tho appropriation of property by the army or navy; and such a certificate, under the rule laid down by this court in Lindsley’s Case, (4 C. Cls. R., p. 359.)
    
      Mr. T. J. D. Puller for tbe claimant.
    On tbe 28th' of July, 18G2, a contract was entered into be- - tween tbe claimant and tbe United States, through tbe agency of Captain James 1. David, assistant quartermaster of tbe cavalry brigade under General Banks, which bad tbe approval of tbe Quartermaster General and tbe Secretary of War, whereby tbe United States promised the claimant to pay him for 40 tons of bay, at' $20 per ton, and 30 bead of beef cattle, weighing net four hundred and fifty pounds per bullock, and worth $35. per bead, making in tbe aggregate tbe sum of $1,360, upon tbe suppression of the rebellion, provided the claimant remained loyal to the United States from the date of the contract, and should give no aid or comfort to the rebellion. The claimant did remain loyal to the United States from the date of the contract, and gave no aid or comfort to the rebellion, and the rebellion being suppressed, and he having performed the conditions of the contract on his part, claims that the United States should keep their plighted faith and promises on their part; but failing to do so, he brings this suit upon the contract, payment having been demanded, and refused, at the proper office for payment.
    The written contract itself is set out in hme verba in the petition, and proved by a certified copy from the Quartermaster General’s office. The authority of David, 'assistant quartermaster, to make the contract is fully proven by the admissions of the Quartermaster General.
    After the suppression of the rebellion, the claimaut presented his voucher to the Quartermaster General for payment, and also to the Commissary General, for that part of the account which regularly relates to subsistence..
    On the 21st April, 1866, the Commissary General rejected the claim. On the 6th November following the Quartermaster General approved the account, and in- his report to the Secretary of War set forth his reasons for its allowance and payment.
    The Secretary of War, on the 26th of November, 1866, approved the decision of the Quartermaster General. But on the 6 th of April, 1817, the Secretary of War revoked his indorsement of November 26, 1866, for no other reason than the passage of the joint resolution of Congress, which went into effect February 9, 2867.
    That the Act July 4, 1864, and the Joint Resolution February 9, 1867, explanatory thereof, does not apply to cases of authorized contracts for the purchase of army supplies, must be regarded as definitely settled, by the frequent rulings 'of this court, and the decision of the Supreme Court in the Florida case of Filor v. The United States. (9 Wall, p. 45.)
    It being a case of purchase by contract, and not one of talcing ór appropriation by the military authority, it is difficult to perceive any good reason why the claim should not be allowed and paid.
    
      
      Mr. Alexander Johnston (with whom was tbe Assistant Attorney General) for tbe defendants:
    I. The court has not jurisdiction of the case. (Act of July i, 1864,13 Stat. L., p. 381.)
    Tbe property was appropriated. It was taken and used, and afterward Captain David gave tbe receipt for it. Tbis be had not tbe right to do. When tbe property bad been seized or taken by tbe military authorities, the title instantly vested in tbe government. Then no quartermaster bad any right to contract in respect to it.
    II. Tbe claimant has not proved that be was loyal. He has not even proved that since bis property was taken be has “conducted himself as a loyal citizen of the United States, and has not given aid or comfort to tbe rebels;,” and if be bad, it would avail him nothing. He must prove that be “ has at all times borne true allegiance to tbe government of tbe United States” or bis petition must be dismissed. {Act of March 3, 1863, 12 Stat. L., p. 765, § 12.)
   Nott, J.,

delivered tbe opinion .of tbe court:

Tbis is an action brought to recover for 40 tons of bay at $20 per ton, and 16 bead of cattle, valued at $800.

There are three fatal objections to a recovery:

1. Tbe petition asks for no relief. Tbe rules of this court point out with particularity and care tbe necessary essentials of a petition, among which is tbis: “ The prayer, in which the claimant must state distinctly the amount for which he demands judgment, or the relief to which he may he entitled.” It is also one of tbe commonest requirements for either a declaration at law, or a bill in equity. Moreover, in this court, we have to estimate upon petitions filed for appropriations to meet our judgments, and tbe clerk has to report annually to Congress tbe amounts claimed by suitors, and the amounts awarded by tbe court. To require an officer charged with tbis duty to read through several hundred petitions, master their contents, and make calculations as to tbe varied items, causes of aetion, and deductions which they contain, would be an unreasonable transference of duty from tbe attorney to whom it belongs to tbe clerk to whom it does not belong. Tbe grounds for insist ing on a compliance with a well-settled rule of pleading, are, in tbis particular, more numerous and as strong in this court as in any other.

2. The claimant was a voluntary resident within the insurrectionary districts. To establish his loyalty he calls only one witness. This witness’s testimony is chiefly negative j he “cannot say that he (Mr. Patterson) ever gave aid and comfort to the rebellion f he does “not know that he ever gave such aid and comfort;” as to whether the people in the neighborhood regarded the claimant as loyal, “ some did, and some did not as to whether he ever knerr the claimant to do anything in favor of the Union during the war, he £< cannot say that he didwas the claimant on friendly terms with persons engaged in the rebelión? “to a certain extent he was.” Another witness the claimant also called, his next-door neighbor, living within two hundred yards of his residence, but asked no question as to his own loyalty of the man who would probably be best acquainted with his life during the rebellion. In view of the positive requirements of the Act 25tli June, 1868, (15 Stat. L., p. 75,) and of the numerous decisions of this court upon the subject of loyalty and the evidence to establish it, we are at a loss to understand how a claimant can expect to recover with such an almost absolute failure of proof.

3. The Act ith July, 1864, (13 Stat. L., p. 381,) declares that our jurisdiction shall not extend to claims growing out of the “appropriation of, or damage to, property by the army.” In Lindsley’s case (4' 0. 01s. B., p. 359) we held that “ where am officer talces property in an insurrectionary State, and malees promises of payment or gives vouchers, the owner doing nothing whatever on the part of the pretended agreement, it ivill be held an appropriation of property by the army, and without the jurisdiction of the court.” With that case before him, the claimant has proved no act whatever of his own whereby the defendants acquired his property. He sues upon a quartermaster’s certificate, “ that there has been received from the farm ofB. L. Patterson, of Culpeper County, Virginia, the following military supplies,” &c. Then follows a declaration that the “ supplies will be accounted for on the property returns ” of the quartermaster; and that “ the oicner ivill be entitled to be paid for the same after the suppression of the rebellion, upon proof that he has from this date conducted himself as a loyal citizen of the United States.” It is asserted that it was the policy of the government to make these bargains with persons within the insurrectionary districts, that the certificate was prepared by and issued under the authority of the Secretary of War, and that the bargain binds the defendants. However true this may be as a political or moral obligation for the consideration of Congress,- no bargain, we think, however faithfully kept, can clothe this court with jurisdiction in defiance of the statutes regulating its jurisdiction. The quartermaster’s certificate states that the property was “ received from the farm.'” One witness testifies: “ The Federal cavalry, under General John Pope, toolc several beef cattle and several staelcs of hay from Mr. Patterson for the use of the cavalry.” Another: 11 At the time the cavalry came in, Mr. Patterson had both cattle and hay, and both disappeared while the cavalry remained on our premisesP This witness also states that u General Hatch upon one occasion, while at my house, said: ‘ Smith, you and Patterson have suffered >icavily by our army, and you shall both be compensated.’ This is all the evidence to establish a contract. We think it shows an u appropriation.”

The judgment of this court is that the petition be dismissed.

Loring-, J.

I concur that the loyalty of the claimant is not sufficiently proved.  