STONE
v.
UNITED STATES

U.S. | 1896-11-30
No. 113
164 U.S. 380 Supreme Court of the United States (1896) Caution
Also reported at: 41 L. Ed. 477 · 17 S. Ct. 71 · SCDB 1896-039 · 1896 U.S. LEXIS 1873
Cited by 79 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

In this appeal from the Court of Claims, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of Stone's claim for depredation of property on the ground that Stone failed to prove the extent of the depredation and value of the property lost. The Court rejected Stone's argument that the Court of Claims had improperly created an arbitrary rule of evidence requiring more witnesses for older claims, holding instead that the lower court properly found the testimony insufficient under the statutory standard requiring "proof satisfactory to the court" as to essential facts. The Court reaffirmed that findings of fact by the Court of Claims are conclusive on appeal and cannot be disturbed by reference to the opinion or other extraneous materials.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Me. Justice Bbewee,

Mr. Justice Bbewee,

after stating th¿ cáse, delivered the opinion of the court. The findings of the Court of Claims in an action at law determine all matters of fact precisely as the verdict of a jury. Act of March 3, 188-7, c. 359, §§ 2, 7, 24 Stat. 505; act of March 3,1S91, c. 538, §§ 1, 4, 26 Stat. 851, 852; Desmare v. United States, 93 U. S. 605, 610 ; McClure v. United States, 116 U. S. 145.

That court finds that the claimant, upon whom rests the burden of proof, has not proved the extent of the depredation or the value of the property, and there being thus a case of a failure of proof judgment properly went against the party upon whom the burden rested. Counsel for appellant contend that the Court of .Claims has attempted to create a rule of evidence as to the number of witnesses required in different classes of cases. Beyond the language of this finding they call our attention to the opinion in which, after a reference to the peculiar circumstances of this case, the court observes: “ The court has no reason in this particular case, other than the lapse of time and the inaction of the claimant, to discredit the witnesses or suspect the claim.” We cannot so interpret the finding or the opinion. We do not understand that either lays down any arbitrary rule of evidence, as, for instance, that a claim ten years old must be proved by at least two witnesses, one twenty years old by three witnesses, and so on. Such action would be legislative rather than judicial. The court simply refers, and properly, to the age of the claim, the failure to present it for such a length of time and the meagreness of the testimony now offered to substantiate it, and then finds that such testimony, as to two essential facts in the claimant’s, case, to wit, the extent of the depredation and the amount of the loss, is not sufficient. It is true the court does not find that the witnesses have sworn falsely,- but that is not essential even when that is its belief. To say that the testimony is hot satisfactory is more polite and less offensive, and at the same time equally sufficient. More than that, it is the very language of the statute, sec. 4 : “ But the claimant shall not have judgment for his claim, or for any part thereof, unless he shall establish the same by proof satisfactory to the court.” We do not mean to intimate that the court in this case believed that the witnesses committed perjury. On the contrary it may well be that it simply found the testimony so confused, so lacking in distinctness and precision, as to suggest a weakening of the memory through lapse of time, and, therefore, not the satisfactory proof required of these essential facts.

We are not at liberty to refer to the opinion for the purpose of eking out, controlling or modifying the scope of the findings. British Queen Mining Co. v. Baker Silver Mining Co., 139 U. S. 222; Lehnen v. Dickson, 148 U. S. 71; Saltonstall v. Birtwell, 150 U. S. 417. Neither is this a case like United States v. Clark, 96 U. S. 37, in which in one finding was stated the testimony, and in another the conclusion as to the ultimate fact, in which case the court held that it might consider the sufficiency of such testimony to establish that principal fact, for here the finding does not disclose the testimony, but only describes its character, and, without questioning its competency, simply declares its insufficiency.

The judgment is

Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (32 total)

  • United States v. Wells, 283 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1931)
    …Y. 447; 109 N. E. 559. Revenue Act of 1924, §§ 319-324, 43 Stat. 253, 313, as amended by Revenue Act of 1926, § 324, 44 Stat. 9, 86. Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U. S. 124. Revenue Act of 1926, § 1200 (a), 44 Stat. 9, 125, 126. Stone v. United States, 164 U. S. 380, 382, 383; Crocker v. United States, 240 U. S. 74, 78; Brothers v. United States, 250 U. S. 88, 93. United States v. Pugh, 99 U. S. 265, 269, 270; Botany Mills v. United States, 278 U. S. 282, 290. Rule 41. Act of February 26,1919, e. 48, 40 Stat…
  • United States v. Shoshone Tribe of Indians, 304 U.S. 111 (U.S. 1938)
    …r or minerals.’ ” The findings are unambiguous; there is no room for. construction. The opinion of the Court of Claims may not be referred to for the purpose of eking out, controlling, or modifying the scope of the findings. Stone v. United States, 164 U. S. 380, 383. Luckenbach S. S. Co. v. United States, 272 U. S. 533, 539-540. Cf. American Propeller Co. v. United States, 300 U. S. 475, 479-480. In this case we have held, 299 U. S. 476, 484, that the tribe had the right of occupancy with all 'its benefic…
  • Frank Crocker in Bankr. of Postal Serv. & Lock Co. v. United States, 240 U.S. 74 (U.S. 1916)
    …shown. In the briefs reference is made to portions of the. opinion delivered in the Court of Claims as if they were not in accord with the findings. We do not so read the opinion, but deem it well to observe, as was done in Stone v. United States, 164 U. S. 380, 382, 383, that “the findings of the Court of Claims in an action at law determine all matters of fact precisely as the verdict of a jury,”.and that “we are not at liberty to refer to the opinion for the purpose of eking out, controlling or modifyin…

Previewing 3 of 32 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw