HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0464 and id is 1 raw text is: Oct. 1874.] HAYCRAFT V. UNITED STATES. 81
Statement of the case.
statements appearing in the record are true, the court did
have jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, and could
bind him by a judgment. No evidence was introduced to
contradict the record. Its truth is, therefore, presumed.
5. In Christmas v. Russell,* this court held that fraud could
not be pleaded to an action in one State upon a judgment
in another. With this we are satisfied.
Since the case of Mills v. Duryea,t it has been settled in
this court that nil debet is not a good plea to an action upon
a judgment in another State. . AFFIRMED.
HAYCRAFT V. UNITED STATES.
Under the act of March 12th, 1863, relating to captured and abandoned
property, and which enacted that any person claiming to be the owner
of such property may, 11 at any time within two years after the sup-
pression of the rebellion, prefer his claim to the proceeds thereof in the
Court of Claims, and, on proof . . . that he has never given any aid
or comfort to the present rebellion, receive the proceeds of the sale of
such property, a person who did give aid and comfort to the rebellion,
and who has not been pardoned until after two years from the suppres-
sion of the rebellion cannot, on then preferring his petition, obtain the
benefit of the act, even though in cases generally the limitation of ac-
tions in the said court is one of six years. The question is not one of
limitation but ofjurisdiction. And the inability of an unpardoned rebel
to sue in the Court of Claims does not control the operation of the statute.
APPEALS from the Court of Claims; the case being thus:
By an act of March 3d, 1863,1 relating to the Court of
Claims, it was enacted that-
The said court shall have and determine all claims founded
upon . . . any contract, express or implied, with the government
of the United States.
5 Wallace, 304. t 7 Cranch, 481.
: Act reorganizing the Court of Claims, 12 Stat. at Large, 767; and see
the act of February 24th, 1855, 10th id. 612, organizing the said court.
VOL. XXI. 6](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ussccases0464&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)