
    CHARLES DE ARNAUD v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [26 C. Cls. R., 370; 161 U. S. R., 483.]
    
      On the claimant's Appeal.
    
    A Russian officer of engineers is employed and paid by General Fremont “for seoret service.” His services consist in going into the enemy's line for military information. On it alone General Grant took possession of Paducah. He produces the highest testimonials as to the value of the services rendered and the dangers incurred from General Grant, General Fremont, and Admiral Foote. His information was coupled with military advice, and his action is brought for services as a military expert.
    The court below decides:
    1. A military expert is unknown to military organizations, is not recog-
    nized in the statutes or Army Regulations, and is not named in any dictionary, military or civil.
    2. Where a military engineer was employed to go within the enemy’s
    lines and make observations and procure information, and his service was designated as “secret service,” and he gave receipts “for account of seoret service rendered,” it must be held that he was a secret agent within the rule in-Totten’s Case (92 U. S. R., 105), who can not maintain an action.
    The opinion of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.
   Mr. Justice Shiras

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, January 29,1894.  