Hooper v. United States
United States Court of Claims
The Reporter's statement of the case: The claimant became eligible for promotion from the warrant office of machinist to the commissioned grade of chief machinist at the expiration of six years’ service, December 27, 1912. He was examined for promotion February 15, 1913, by a board of medical examiners and on February 19, 1913, by a naval examining board, and found and reported qualified for promotion by both of these boards.
Read the full summary
The Reporter's statement of the case: The claimant became eligible for promotion from the warrant office of machinist to the commissioned grade of chief machinist at the expiration of six years’ service, December 27, 1912. He was examined for promotion February 15, 1913, by a board of medical examiners and on February 19, 1913, by a naval examining board, and found and reported qualified for promotion by both of these boards. These were unqualified findings in his favor by the two boards required for that purpose by Revised Statutes,' sections 1493,1496. If the usual and regular course…
1ConcurrenceCampbell, Chief Justice
I concur in Judge Hay’s opinion, but because of the contention made in this case that former decisions authorize a recovery I think it proper to state my views of the case more at length.
The plaintiff rests his case upon the Toulon and Downes cases, and the defendants’ counsel seems also to admit a right of recovery because of said cases. The case must be determined, however, upon the facts developed in it.
Section 1493 of the Revised Statutes forbids promotion to a higher grade on the active list of the Navy (except in a case not material here) until the officer has been examined by a board…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Toulon v. United States.United States Court of Claims · 1916
- Downes v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1917