Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves a dispute over entitlement to a reward offered by the War Department for the apprehension of John H. Surratt. The plaintiff's testator claimed the $25,000 reward on the basis that he provided information leading to Surratt's arrest. The court, affirming the Court of Claims' decision, determined that the testator was not entitled to the full reward because he did not actually apprehend Surratt; he only provided information. The court emphasized the distinction between arrest and information provision, as defined in the War Department's proclamation, which specified a larger reward for arrest and a lesser one for information. Additionally, the court considered the revocation of the reward offer, which occurred publicly before the claimant took any action that would have entitled him to the reward. The claimant's lack of knowledge about the revocation was ruled irrelevant, leading to the conclusion that the claimant had already received the appropriate reward for the information he provided. The judgment by the Court of Claims was thus upheld, denying the larger reward claim.
Legal Issues Addressed
Distinction Between Arrest and Providing Informationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The legal principle differentiates between the act of apprehending an individual and merely providing information that leads to such apprehension.
Reasoning: The court highlighted the distinction between these two actions, noting that the War Department's proclamation treated them differently, with a significant reward offered for apprehension but only a 'liberal reward' for information.
Entitlement to Rewards Based on Specific Contributionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied this principle by determining that the claimant was only entitled to the reward for providing information, not for the arrest itself.
Reasoning: The court found that the claimant did not make the arrest; rather, it was executed by others who were not agents of the claimant and were entitled to the reward for the arrest.
Public Revocation of Reward Offerssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: This principle was applied to conclude that the claimant's ignorance of the public revocation of the reward offer was irrelevant to the case.
Reasoning: The offer being public meant it could be revoked publicly, and the claimant should have been aware of this. Even though he was ignorant of the revocation at the time he provided information, this ignorance was deemed irrelevant.