Opinion of the Court recover in respect to such timber. Plaintiffs' first claim in suit is therefore disallowed. The second claim in suit is for the value of 10,129.20 acres of land at $1.25 per acre, or $12,661.50, together with interest thereon at the rate of 5 percent per annum from November 23, 1885, to the date of judgment. The basis of the second claim is, that as a result of erroneous surveys approved June 21, 1872, December 14, 1875, and November 23, 1885, marking the exterior boundaries of the Red Lake Reservation, as fixed in the treaties of February 22, 1855, and October 2, 1863, there were mistakenly included within the boundaries of the reservation 31,933.96 acres of defendant's lands and mistakenly excluded therefrom 48,299.76 acres of land set aside by the treaty of October 2, 1863, for the use of the Indians, resulting in a loss to the Indians of 16,365.80 acres, which were appropriated by the Government to its own use and disposed of under the general homestead laws without any consideration therefor to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' concede that in a settlement made with them under the act of February 9, 1925 (43 Stat. 816), for lands taken under the act of May 17, 1900 (31 Stat. 179), commonly known as the Free Homestead Act, they were paid at the rate of $1.25 an acre for 6,236.60 acres in excess of the actual acreage taken under that Act. The claim presented, therefore, is for the difference between the 16,365.80 acres included by the treaties stated, within the boundaries of the Red Lake Reservation, which were mistakenly appropriated by the defendant as the result of erroneous surveys, and the 6,236.60 excess acreage for which plaintiffs were paid under the Free Homestead Act. Plaintiffs do not allege in their amended petition of August 22, 1935, when this claim is for the first time asserted, that the claim arises or grows out of the act of January 14, 1889, or any subsequent act of Congress. On the contrary, as the following excerpt from the petition shows, the plaintiffs allege that the claim arose long prior to the act of January 14, 1889: Prior to the adoption of the Act of January 14, 1889 (25 Stat. 642), the defendant, the United States, had assumed to survey and establish the boundaries of the Opinion of the Court reservations in Minnesota occupied by the Chippewa Indians of Minnesota. In the making of such surveys and establishing of such boundaries errors occurred, as a result of which there were wrongfully excluded from the Indian reservations as the same had been established by prior treaties with the Indians, a total of 16,365.80 acres of lands, which lands the defendant, United States, in consequence of errors aforesaid, and prior to January 14, 1889, had disposed of under its public land laws without any credit to the Indians therefor. * The court's jurisdiction in this case is limited to “legal and equitable claims arising under or growing out of the act of January 14, 1889 *, or arising under or growing out of any subsequent Act of Congress" which the "Chippewa Indians of Minnesota may have against the United States." It is too clear for argument or for extended discussion that the claim now under consideration is outside the jurisdiction of the court, however meritorious it otherwise may be. The claim, therefore, will have to be disallowed. OFFSETS The jurisdictional act provides: SEC. 3. In said suit or suits the court shall also hear, examine, consider, and adjudicate any claims which the United States may have against the said Chippewa Indians, and any payment or payments which may have been made by the United States upon any claim against the United States by said Indians shall not operate as an estoppel, but may be pleaded as an offset in such suit or suits as may gratuities, if any, paid to or expended for said Indians subsequent to January 14, 1889. The defendant contends that the disbursements set out in findings numbers 16 to 21, inclusive, constitute offsets within the meaning of the jurisdictional act. Plaintiffs contend that none of the expenditures referred to in these findings form the basis for any offset herein. They contend that the claimed offsets include expenditures in maintaining the defendant's long established Indian service in policing the Indian country, and in educating and training the In Opinion of the Court dians in agricultural and other civilized pursuits; that such expenditures were made in accord with a long established government policy and for the express purpose of ultimately changing the hereditary customs and habits of the tribes and that the expenditures were made only indirectly for the benefit, or jointly for their benefit and for the purposes of the Government, and do not constitute gratuities within the meaning of the jurisdictional act. Both the plaintiffs and the defendant have earnestly urged their contentions in respect to the nature of the disbursements set out in the findings referred to, but inasmuch as plaintiffs are not entitled to recover on their claims against the United States there is nothing to offset in this suit, and a discussion and a determination by the court of the question as to whether these expenditures either in part or in whole would constitute offsets within the meaning of the jurisdictional act in case plaintiffs had been awarded a judgment would be of academic interest only, and would in no way affect the decision. Decision therefore in respect to the offsets claimed by the defendant will be deferred to such time as plaintiffs may present recoverable claims against the United States, if that occasion should arise. Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover, and the petition, therefore, is dismissed. It is so ordered. WHALEY, Judge; LITTLETON, Judge; GREEN, Judge; and BOOTH, Chief Justice, concur. MEMORANDUM On May 31st, 1938, the plaintiff's motion for new trial was overruled, and the defendant's motion for new trial was allowed in part and overruled in part. It was further ordered that an amendment be made to the findings of fact; and the findings as amended and the judgment and opinion of the court as previously announced were confirmed, as above. (NOTE.—Affirmed by the Supreme Court, January 3rd, 1939. See page 755, post.) Reporter's Statement of the Case DAVID MCD. SHEARER v. THE UNITED STATES [No. 41829. Decided March 7, 1938; plaintiff's and defendant's motions for new trial overruled November 14, 1938] On the Proofs Patents for certain inventions relating to reinforced concrete revetment and construction and laying of same.-Plaintiff's claims 3 and 6 of patent No. 1173879 for reinforced concrete revetment and claims 6, 8, and 9 of patent No. 1229152 for launching apparatus held to be valid. Jurisdictional Act; interpretation.-Special jurisdictional acts are to be strictly construed; moral obligations or seeming injustices, beyond the terms of the Act, are not to be considered. Patents by Government employe; non-exclusive license or infringement. Where the plaintiff, an employe of the Government, not on active duty status, but in his vacation time, conceived and designed a concrete revetment (patent No. 1173879) for which he submitted drawings, what he did was not within his official duties, and although the invention was subsequently tested by the Government, under the inventor's personal supervision, the Government did not thereby acquire a non-exclusive implied license. Same. Where the plaintiff, an employe of the Government while on active duty, submitted designs for a launching apparatus (patent No. 1229152) which were successively tested by the Government, and essential changes were made in the original design, the materials being furnished and all the expenses borne by the Government, without reimbursement, what he did was in direct line of duty, and a non-exclusive implied license was acquired by the Government. U. S. v. Dubilier Condenser Corp., 289 U. S. 178; Gill v. U. S., 160 U. S. 426; Knapp v. U. S., 46 C. Cls. 601. Testimony of plaintiff; corroboration by exhibit.-Where an exhibit furnishes corroboration of plaintiff's testimony as to his claim that invention was made when off duty, in absence of other testimony such corroboration is accepted. Eibel Process Co. v. Paper Co., 261 U. S. 45; Symington Co. v. National Castings Co., 250 U. S. 383. The Reporter's statement of the case. Mr. C. B. Des Jardins for the plaintiff. Messrs. C. C. Calhoun and Halbert P. Brown were on the briefs. Reporter's Statement of the Case Mr. Clifton V. Edwards, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Sam E. Whitaker, for the defendant. Mr. J. F. Mothershead was on the brief. The Court made special findings of fact as follows: 1. This suit is brought by David McDougald Shearer, a citizen of the United States, for alleged infringement of three United States letters patent to him, numbers 1173879 and 1173880, patented February 29, 1916, on applications filed December 30, 1914, and August 20, 1915, respectively, and letters patent number 1229152, patented June 5, 1917, on an application filed October 6, 1915. Copies of these patents are in evidence as plaintiff's exhibits 2, 3, and 4, respectively. These exhibits and all other exhibits referred to in these findings are made a part hereof by reference. 2. A special act of Congress (Private, No. 285, 71st Congress) was enacted by the 71st Congress and approved by the President on December 17, 1930 (46 Stat. 1970). The act reads as follows: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the claim of David McD. Shearer for compensation for the use by the Government of the United States of certain inventions relating to reinforced concrete revetment and construction and laying of same, made by said David McD. Shearer, and for which letters patent of the United States numbered 1173879, 1173880, and 1229152 were issued to him, be, and the same is hereby, referred to the Court of Claims, which court is hereby vested with jurisdiction in the premises, and whose duty it shall be to hear and determine any statute limiting the time within which such an action may be brought to the contrary notwithstanding, first, whether the said David McD. Shearer was the first, original, and sole inventor of the inventions described in said letters patent or any of them; and if said court shall find that he was such first, original, and sole inventor of any of the same, then to determine, second, what amount of compensation, if any, he is justly entitled to receive from the United States for the use of his said inventions or any of them, since the date of said letters patent, up to the time of adjudication. In determining whether or not said David McD. Shearer 109870-39-c.c.-vol. 87- —5 |