# Montgomery v. United States

> United States Court of Claims · June 1, 1914 · 49 Ct. Cl. 574

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8585560

## Case

- **Full name:** JAMES MONTGOMERY v. THE UNITED STATES SUSAN V. MARSH, OF JAMES MARSH v. THE UNITED STATES FRANCIS A. LACY, HEIR WILLIAM B. LACY v. THE UNITED STATES HIBERNIA BANK & TRUST CO. v. THE UNITED STATES JOSEPH H. PARSONS, HEIR, LEWIS E. PARSONS v. THE UNITED STATES HEIRS OF MORDECAI SEARS v. United States
- **Court:** United States Court of Claims
- **Decided:** June 1, 1914
- **Citations:** 49 Ct. Cl. 574; 1914 WL 1414
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Howry
- **Judges:** Campbell, Howry
- **Cited by:** 6 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/8585560

## Opinion text

Howry, Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the foregoing opinion, and add that while in some cases conclusions by the court have been stated to the effect that the particular claim reported upon was equitable “in the sense that the Government had received a benefit,” the qualifying clause clearly indicated that the purpose was not to define the claim as legal or equitable in the juridicial sense.
*630 It has been the purpose and practice of the court to observe the line of demarcation between claims wbicb are legal or equitable in tbe juridical sense and those which as regards their merit must be determined by the legislative branch.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8585560. Public record. Not legal advice.