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/ussccases0478 and id is 1 raw text is: Qct. 1873.] RAILROAD COMPANY V. BROWN. 445
Syllabus.
Congress was pas'sed to remove the restriction of the ninth
section of the act of 1863, and his claim was referred to the
Court of Claims for adjudication thereof, pursuant to au-
thority conferred upon said court by any existing law to
examine and decide claims against the lnited States, re-
ferred to it by Congress.* His claim was thus placed under
the jurisdiction of the court equally as though the ninth sec-
tion were not in existence.
In the present case, no such general reference was made
of the claim of Atoeha, nor was any such extended author-
ity over it conferred. The court was directed to make a
specific examination into the justice of the claim against
Mexico, and whether it was embraced within tire treaty;
and if the court was of opinion that the claim was a just one
and was embraced within tha.treaty, it was required to fix
and determine its amount, and when so determfined, the
act declares that the amount shall be paid. -The matter was
referred to the court to ascertain a particular fact to guide
the government in the execution of its treaty stipulations.
The court has acted upon the matter, and as no mode is
provided for a review of its action, it must be taken and re-
garded as final.
Our judgment is, that the return of the judges of the
Court of Claims to the alternative writ is sufficient, and a
peremptory mandamus is
DENIED.
RAILROAD COMPANY v. BRowN.
1. An act of Congress, in cases of a suit against a railroad company which
it incorporated, authorized service of process on any director of the
company. On a suit brought, the marshal made a return of service,
July 6th, 1868, on J. S., reputed to be one of the directors of the con-
pany. The record showed that on the 5th of May, 1866, J. S. was, in
fact, one of the directors. Held, sufficient service, in the absence of
proof, that J. S. was not one of the directors at the time of service; and
* 14 Stat. at Large, 611.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ussccases0478&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)