
    JAMES FURLONG v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [Congressional,
    No. 1177.
    Decided January 3, 1888.]
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    During tile year 1864 officers of the Army, by proper authority hire from the claimant a wharf-boat to he used in the military service in Arkansas, agreeing to return it in good condition.
    I. The boat is carried down the river and lost. An express agreement made by proper military authority for tne use of boat in an insur-rectionary district in 1864 was a valid contract, for breach of which an action would lio under the general jurisdiction of the court. (Rev. Stat., $ 1059.)
    
      II. The Bowman Act (22 Stat. L., 185) excludes from the jurisdiction of the court any claim “ which is nozo (March 3, 1883) barred.”
    
    III. The Act 4th July, 1864 (.13 Stat. L., 381), applies only to claims growing out of the “destruction” or “appropriation” of, or “damage” to property, but does not extend to claims founded on express contracts.
    
      The Reporters’ statement of the case:
    The claim in this case was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Represen tatives in July, 1886, and was brought to a hearing during the present term. On the hearing, the counsel for the Government raised the question of jurisdiction. The court went no further than the petition of the claimant, the principal allegations of which are quoted in its opinion. .
    
      Mr. James B. Edmonds for the claimant.
    
      Mr. Leiois Goehr an (with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Howard) for the defendants.
   Scofield, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant, in his petition to the court, states his case as follows:

“ During the year 1864, the Army of the United States Government, by proper authority, hired and took from your petitioner one wharf-boat to be used in the military service of the United States, at the mouth of White Itiver, in the State of Arkansas, agreeing to return said boat to your petitioner in as good condition as it was then in, reasonable wear and tear excepted; that when the officers sought to return the boat to your petitioner it was not in good condition, and the officer agreed to keep it until it could be put in good condition, but before he had done so it was carried down the river and lost. * * * That said boat was worth at the time it was hired from your petitioner, and at the time of its loss, the sum of $'7,000.w

These facts constitute a valid contract with the defendants, for any breach of which the claimant, under section 1059 of the Revised Statutes might have brought his action in the Oourtof Claims at any time within six years after the claim first accrued. Section 1069 of the Revised Statutes provides that all claims cognizable by the Court of Claims shall be forever barred unless the petition setting forth a statement thereof is filed in the court within six years after the claim first accrues.

Section 3 of the Bowman Act (22 Sta-t. L., 485), excludes from the jurisdiction of the court under that act “any claim against the United States which is now. (March 3, 1883) barred by virtue of the provisions of any law of the United States. ”

It is contended by the claimant that his claim was excluded from the jurisdiction of the court by the Act July 4,1864 (13 Stat. L., 381). That act, however, applies only to “claims growing out of the destruction or appropriation of, or damage to, property by the Army or Navy engaged in the suppression of the rebellion, ” but does not extend to express contracts. (Russell v. The United States, 13 Wall., 623; Green’s Case 18 C. Cls. R., 94.)

As the court has no jurisdiction of the claim under the Bowman Act, the claimant’s petition must be dismissed. •  