Pack v. United States
United States Court of Claims
The Reporters' statement of the case: ' The facts of the case sufficiently appeal' in the opinion of the court: If section 2 of the act of July 31,1894, were the same, word for word, as section U63 of the Bevised Statutes, would that have justified a construction different from the one placed upon section 1763 by the Supreme Court? Certainly not.
Read the full summary
The Reporters' statement of the case: ' The facts of the case sufficiently appeal' in the opinion of the court: If section 2 of the act of July 31,1894, were the same, word for word, as section U63 of the Bevised Statutes, would that have justified a construction different from the one placed upon section 1763 by the Supreme Court? Certainly not. Then the question is whether there is such conflict between the language taken from the earlier statute and the new language in the later statute as to indicate an intention on the part of Congress.to change the construction. There is no such…
1Opinion of the Court
Peelle, Ch. J.,
delivered the opinion of the court: ,
In October, 1900, the claimant, while serving as a copyist in the Bureau of Supplies and Accounts in the Navy Department,’ at a salary of $1,200 per annum, is, upon the recommendation of the Paymaster-General, with’ the approval of the Secretary of the Navy, appointed'by the President under the act of-June 7, 1878 (20 Stat. L., 101), a notary public in the District of Columbia to serve for five years.
While serving as' such' clerk he also performs the duties of notary public in administering to the Paymaster-'General oaths to certain…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- United States v. HartwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1868
- Ball v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- McDowell v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- United States v. SaundersSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Converse v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1859
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Evans v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1909
- Authority to Employ White House Office Personnel Exempt From the Annual and Sick Leave Act Under 5 U.S.C. § 6301(2)(x) and (xi) During an Appropriations Lapse, Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel2011
- Authority to Employ White House Officials Exempt from Annual and Sick Leave Act During Appropriations Lapse, Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel2011
- McMath v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1916
- Michelsen v. PenneyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1943
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.