# Portland Co. v. United States

> United States Court of Claims · December 15, 1869 · 5 Ct. Cl. 441

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6590175

## Case

- **Full name:** PORTLAND COMPANY'S CASE. The Portland Company v. United States
- **Court:** United States Court of Claims
- **Decided:** December 15, 1869
- **Citations:** 5 Ct. Cl. 441
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Nott
- **Judges:** Nott, Peck
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6590175

## Opinion text

Nott, J.,
concurring:
I am compelled to place this case upon another ground than that assumed by the opinion of the court. It is not the case of a suitor seeking to recover back money illegally collected by the revenue officers, and paid into the Treasury without the authority of law. It is the case of a party seeking affirmative relief, given, not by the general principles of law, but by an express statutory provision, which at the same time prescribes a special mode of obtaining redress, and designates a particular tribunal as having what the courts have again and again held to be exclusive jurisdiction. The cases of Meade, in this court, (2 C. Cls. R., p. 224;) of De Bode, in the House of Lords, (3 Clarke, H. L. Cases, p. 468;) of Barnard’s heirs v. Ashley’s heirs, in the Supreme Court, (18 How. R., p. 43,) sufficiently illustrate the principle on which this opinion rests.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6590175. Public record. Not legal advice.