
    HENRY T. WOODY v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [Congressional
    49.
    Decided February 20, 1888.]
    
      On the Court1 s own Motion.
    
    The petition contains only the averment of the claimant’s loyalty: “ Thai hewas loyal.” It is verified neither by him nor his attorney. The agency of the person who does verify it is not alleged in the affidavit nor established by a power of attorney. The jurat contains no indication of the place where it was made nor of the authority of the officer to administer the oath.
    
      I.A petition which merely avers that the person who fuinishecl supplies or stores for the Army during the rebellion “ was loyal” does not comply with the requirement of the Bowman Act (22 Stat. L., p. 485, § 4) that he “did not give any aid or oomfort to said rebellion', but ivas throughout that ■war loyal to the Government of the United States ’’
    
    II.Though tho defendant’s attorney may not take the objection that the averment of loyalty is insufficient in a Congressional case, the court can not overlook the omission, the averment being jurisdictional.
    III.The rules of the court require that suits under the Bowmen Act be brought by petition under oath, verified in the manner provided by the Revised Statutes, § 72; and that if verified by an attorney or agent, a power of attorney authorizing him to make the verification must be filed.
    
      The Reporters'1 statement of the case:
    This case was submitted upon the proofs without objection being taken to the insufficiency of the petition by the counsel for the United States. The averment deemed by the court insufficient to confer jurisdiction and the irregularity of the verification are set forth in the opinion of the court.
    
      Mr. George A. King for the claimant.
    
      Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Hoivard for the defendant.
   Nott, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The petition in this case contains only the following averment •as to the claimant’s loyalty: “ That he was loyal.”

It is verified neither by the claimant nor his attorney of record.

The agency of the person who does verify it is not alleged in the affidavit, nor established by a power of attorney.

The jurat contains no indication of the place where it was made, nor of the authority of the officer to administer the oath.

The court is of the opinion that the petition docs not comply with the requirement of the Bowman Act (22 Stat. L., 485, § 4), which provides, for cases like the present, “ that the petition shall aver that the person who furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom such supplies or stores were taken, did not give any aid or comfort to said rebellion, but was throughout that war loyal to the Government of the United States.”

It is true that tlíe counsel for the defendant has not taken this objection, but inasmuch as the fact is made “jurisdictional”-by the statute, the court can not overlook the omission of its averment.

It is also to be observed that Buie 94 requires that suits under the Bowman Act shall be brought by the claimant’s “filing his petition under oath in accordance with Buie 7 f that Buie 7 requires that the petition “ be verified in the manner provided by law” (Bev. Stat., § 72), and Bule 12, “that if the petition be verified by the attorney at law or other agent of the claimant, a power of attorney authorizing him to make the verification must be filed with it.”

The case complies with none of these rules, nor with the statutes. It is therefore remanded to the general docket.  