Magaw v. United States
United States Court of Claims
The Reporters’ statement of tlie case: Tbe claimant here, a commander in tbe Navy, was retired prior to tbe Revised Statutes on furlough pay and was allowed and paid one-balf of tbe sea pay” of bis grade or rank at tbe time of bis retirement, wliicb was then tbe furlough pay” of a retired officer. When tbe Revised Statutes took effect, tbe accounting officers reduced bis pay under section 1593 to onebalf of leave-of-absence pay.”
Read the full summary
The Reporters’ statement of tlie case: Tbe claimant here, a commander in tbe Navy, was retired prior to tbe Revised Statutes on furlough pay and was allowed and paid one-balf of tbe sea pay” of bis grade or rank at tbe time of bis retirement, wliicb was then tbe furlough pay” of a retired officer. When tbe Revised Statutes took effect, tbe accounting officers reduced bis pay under section 1593 to onebalf of leave-of-absence pay.” Leave-of-absence pay being less than sea pay, tbe effect of tbe change was to reduce tbe claimant’s pay from $1,750 a year to $1,150. For tbe difference so withheld…
1Opinion of the CourtDavis, J.
By the third chapter of Title XV of the Revised Statutes, it is provided that when a duly organized retiring board finds an officer to be incapacitated for active service, it shall also find the cause which produced the incapacity, and whether it is an incident of the service (§ 1451). The Secretary of the Navy is then required to lay these findings before the President (§1452). On the President’s approval, the officer is to be retired from service ; and, if the incapacity is the result of an incident of the service, the retired officer is to receive retired pay as allowed by chapter 8 of the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- United States v. BowenSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Fisher v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1879
3Cited by3 opinions
- Brown v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1883
- Franklin v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1893
- Burchard v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1884