United States v. Crosley

by William R. Day

United States Supreme Court

196 U.S. 327

United States  v.  Crosley

 Argued: December 9, 1904. --- Decided: January 23, 1905

This case was tried in the court of claims upon a petition filed to recover pay for services in the United States Navy, rendered by the defendant in error while he was a lieutenant of the junior grade, and acting as aid to Rear Admiral Watson, then serving with the rank of rear admiral in the nine higher numbers of that grade, and, under § 1466 of the Revised Statutes (U.S.C.omp. Stat. 1901, p. 1029), entitled to rank with a major general in the Army. The claimant alleges that he should have received from the 1st day of July, 1899, to the 8th day of September, 1899,

Page 328 Pay of a first lieutenant in the Army, being the grade corresponding to lieutenant, junior grade, in the Navy, under Rev. Stat. 1261, U.S.C.omp. Stat. 1901, p. 893..................... $1,500

Longevity pay under Rev. Stat. 1262, U.S.C.omp. Stat. 1901, p. 896, for second five years of service............................................ 150

Pay as aid to rear admiral of corresponding grade to major general, under Rev. Stat. 1261................................................. 200

Mounted pay due under Army Regulations of 1895, paragraph 1301, to "authorize aids duly appointed"............................................ 100

Longevity pay upon the last two items, under Rev. Stat. 1262........................... 30

---

Total............................................ $1,980

That from September 9, 1899, to September 8, 1900 he was entitled to pay as follows: Pay of a first lieutenant in the Army Under Rev. Stat. 1261........................ $1,500

Longevity pay under Rev. Stat. 1262, for third five years of service............................................ 300

Pay as aid to rear admiral of corresponding grade to major general, under Rev. Stat. 1261................................................ 200

Mounted pay due under Army Regulations of 1895, paragraph 1301................................................. 100

Longevity pay on the last two items under Rev. Stat. 1262........................... 60

---

Total............................................. $2,160

He received pay during the period in controversy at the rate of $1,800 per annum, being from July 1, 1899, to September 8, 1899, the rate of pay granted by statute (Rev. Stat. § 1556, U.S.C.omp. Stat. 1901, p. 1067) to a lieutenant, junior grade, at sea during his first five years in that rank, and for the period from September 9, 1899, to September 8, 1900, being the rate fixed by Rev. Stat. § 1261, for a first lieutenant not mounted, with the longevity allowance of the statute (§ 1262) for the third five years of service; and he claims that, in addition to the amount allowed, he is entitled to pay or allowance as aid to a rear admiral; also, mounted pay due for such service, with the longevity pay arising from the items in question. In all, he claims the sum of $394.

The court of claims, upon the hearing, made the following findings of fact:

'I. The claimant entered service in the United States Navy on the 9th day of September, 1899, and from the 1st day of July, 1899, until the 8th day of September, 1900, was a lieutenant, junior grade, in the Navy, and an aid to Rear Admiral J. C. Watson; Rear Admiral Watson was at that time one of the nine higher numbers of the grade of rear admiral, and was entitled, under § 1466 of the Revised Statutes, to rank with a major general in the United States Army. II. During said period claimant was paid at the rate of $1,800 a year.'

And as conclusions of law held:

'Upon the foregoing findings of fact the court decides, as a conclusion of law, that the claimant recover judgment of and from the United States in the sum of three hundred and ninety-four dollars ($394).'

From the judgment of that court the United States appeals to this court.

appellant.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 329-330 intentionally omitted]

Messrs.George A. King and William B. King for appellee.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 330-331 intentionally omitted]

Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court:

Notes