
    A. T. TERRILL v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [Congressional 6974.
    Decided June 19, 1893. [
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    The claim is a soldier’s, for horses lost in hattle, and the only question is whether it -was harred at the time of the passage of the Bowman Act.
    The Act 9lh January, 1883 (22 Stat. L., p. 401) extends the time for filing claims for horses lost in battle to January 9, 1884. Therefore, such claims were not barred at the time of the enactment of the Bowman Act, March 3,1883, and are within the jurisdiction of the court.
    
      The Reporters' statement of the case:
    The claim was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 23d day of February, 18S9.
    The petition alleges that during the war of the rebellion the claimant resided at Lexington, Henderson County, State of Tennessee; that he enlisted and was duly mustered as a soldier on the 8th of August, 1862, in Company A of the Seventh Tennessee Cavalry, U. S. Volunteers, and was honorably discharged from said service on the 9th of August, 1865.
    That he furnished for his own use while in said service one bay horse and equipage, valued at $125, and one sorrel mule and equipage, valued at $150.
    That he claims payment for the same under section 3482 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, which provides—
    
      “ That any field, staff, or other officer, mounted militiaman, volunteer, ranger, or cavalryman engaged in the military service of the United States who sustains damage, without any fault or negligence on his part, while in the service, by the loss of a horse in battle, * * * or for loss of necessary equipage, in consequence of the loss of his horse, shall be allowed and paid the value thereof, not to exceed two hundred dollars.”
    The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, made the following findings :
    I. The claimant, while engaged in the military service of the United States as a cavalryman, without any fault or negligence on his part, sustained damage by the loss, in battle, of his horse (a mule) and saddle, June 20,1863, at Mount Pinston, Tenn., of the value of $150, for which he has not been paid.
    II. While so engaged, without any fault or negligence on his part, he sustained further damage by the loss, in battle, of his horse and saddle, at Union City, Tenn., March 24, 1864, of the value of $125, for which he has not been paid.
    
      Mr. Gilbert Moyers for the claimant.
    
      Mr. Felix Brannigan (with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Cotton) for .the defendants.
   Richardson, Ch. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives transmitted this claim to the court under the provisions of the Bowman Act of March 3, 1883, ch. 116 (1 Supp. Rev. Stat., 2d ed., p. 403).

The defendants contend that the court is without jurisdiction of the claim for the horses on the ground that it is barred by law and therefore excluded from its jurisdiction by the last clause of section 3 of said act.

The court has already held that a claim is not barred, within the meaning of that section, if at the time of the passage of tbe act any avenue for its settlement was then open (Nutt’s Case, 26 C. Cls. R., 15; McClure’s Case, 19 id., 18).

Revised Statutes, section 3482, provides for.the payment for horses and equipments lost in battle. Section 3489 limits the time for presenting claims for such loss to June 30,1874. This limit was extended to Jannary 1,1876, by the act of June 22, 1874, and was further extended to one year from January 9, 1883, by the act of that date, chapter 16 (1 Suxip. Rev. Stat., 2d ed., p. 390).

Before that year had expired the Bowman act was passed, March 3, 1883.

Thus, at the time of the passage of the act this claim, to the extent limited in the statute, was not barred; and beyond that there never was a bar. •

The court has found the facts for report to Congress.

Nott, J., did not sit in this case and took no part in the decision.  