Viewing page 94 of 299
This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.
180 (65. 1st Vol) 19th March Howard, Maj. Genl. O.O. Commissioner General I have the honor to enclose Report of "Changes in Officers" doing duty in the Bureau during the month of February 1866. I am General Very respectfully Your obedient servant (Sigd) O Brown Col. and Asst. Comr. Official James A. Bates A.A.A.G. (66. 1st Vol) 19. March Howard, Maj Genl. O.O. Commissioner General I have the honor to enclose vouchers, and certificates for retained Bountys due the following men viz - Samuel Marshall Co D. 1st U.S.C.C. $100.00 William Turner Co C. 1st U.S.C.C. $100.00 Abram Cradle Co F. 1st U.S.C.C. $108.33 Willis Caster or Caston Co B. 1st U.S.C.C. $100.00 Frank Betts Co C. 1st U.S.C.C. $100.00 Axion Butler Co C. 1st U.S.C.C. $100.00 Total $618.00 I am General Very respectfully Your obt servant (Sigd) O Brown Col. and Asst. Comr. Official James A. Bates A.A.A.G. (18. Enclosures) (67. 1st Vol) 19th March Howard Maj Genl O.O. Commissioner General I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of March 1st 1866 relating to the claim of Rhoda Christian vs. R.W. Hughes, Admr of the Estate of Henry Parkhurst (dec'd) with which the papers are returned 181 That "communication" ends with a recommendation that the case be brought before the United States Circuit Court which holds a session in May next. This recommendation which coming from you as an order compels me to return all the papers to you for your action or future instruction to myself. There seems to be no right in the plaintiff to obtain the benefit of the jurisdiction of the tribunal specified. All the parties to the record, are residents of the State of Virginia, the estate I am instructed that property being in the actual as well as legal possession of the administrator, there is no form of action in which Rhoda Christian can proceed against the heirs at law, without their consent or agreement. The communication from you, signed by Asst Adjt Genl Fowler, criticizes the finding of the Commission to whom I referred the case after the decision of the Freedmens Court which was not satisfactory to me, and also find fault with the opinion of that Court. I enclose an explanation of the Court relative to their decision, in which the majority distinguish between that and the opinion - But in justice to my endorsement, which was my decision, I must respectfully represent in returning the papers that it seems to have been disregarded, and that it neither followed the report of the commission or the decision of the Court, nor was it based upon the reasoning of either. The reasons for my endorsement having been on file in this office since Feb 1st, 1866 are as follows The opinion of the Freedmens Court is that the claims of Rhoda was good either as a gift inter vivas or donatio causa mortis or payment of a creditor. This is incorrect. The evidence necessary for a valid gift inter viva[[strikethrough]] l [[/strikethrough]] s is wanting and none of the requests of a nuncupative will even observed. A good donatio causa mortis is established admitting the statement of Rhoda regarding the delivery of the key as a symbol, and the best symbol of the delivery of possession, the actual property being in the box at the bankers, and not bodily transferable - even with the admission of Rhoda to two somewhat suspicious witnesses, connected. connected with
Transcription Notes:
nuncupative is an adjective meaning "so called" or "not written"
