Overview
Case summary
L. H. Grimes filed a claim for supplies taken by the U.S. Army during the Civil War. The claim was referred to the Court of Claims under the Bowman Act. The government challenged the competency of evidence (affidavits) taken in 1881, arguing that the statutory notice required by the Act of June 15, 1880, was not provided. The court held that the statute is remedial and that the absence of formal notice does not render the evidence incompetent if the underlying purpose of the statute—providing the claimant an opportunity to cross-examine and present witnesses—was fulfilled. The court subsequently found the claimant to be loyal.
Abstract
Claimant filed a claim for supplies taken by the U.S. Army during the Civil War, referred to the Court of Claims under the Bowman Act. The government challenged the competency of affidavits taken in 1881 due to lack of statutory notice under the Act of June 15, 1880, but the court held the evidence competent because the statute's remedial purpose—allowing cross-examination and witness presentation—was fulfilled. The court ultimately found the claimant loyal.
Opinion of the court
opinionWeldon, J.
- The Act of June 15, 1880, is a remedial statute.
- The purpose of notice is to facilitate cross-examination and the presentation of evidence.
- If the purpose of the statute is met, lack of formal notice does not invalidate the evidence.
- The Allen Case is distinguished because that evidence was taken prior to the 1881 Act.
Procedural posture
Legal categories
Case record
Issues & holdings
de novo
The court held that the statute is remedial and should be construed liberally; if the purpose of the notice (cross-examination and opportunity to present witnesses) is achieved, the lack of formal notice does not render the evidence incompetent.
Holdings of the court
Statutory interpretation
1Timeline
No timeline recorded.
Facts & evidence
Incident
Key facts
4 facts- Claimant sought compensation for stores and supplies taken by the U.S. Army.
- Claim was rejected by the Quartermaster-General for lack of receipts.
- Evidence consists of affidavits taken in 1881 before a Quartermaster-General's agent.
- Defendants challenged the competency of the evidence due to lack of statutory notice.
Evidence in the record
- Affidavits taken before the Quartermaster-General's agent in 1881.
- Evidence type: Affidavits · Challenge basis: Lack of statutory notice under 21 Stat. L., 586 · Trial court ruling: admitted · Challenged on appeal: true · Appellate outcome: affirmed