Yemans v. United States
United States Court of Claims
The Reporter's statement of the case: The facts of the case and the grounds of plaintiff’s motion are sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the court.
Read the full summary
The Reporter's statement of the case: The facts of the case and the grounds of plaintiff’s motion are sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the court. We think an examination of the act creating the Medical Reserve Corps will satisfy the court on the face of the act that an officer, who like the present, was appointed to that corps from the position of contract surgeon, is regarded and treated as being in the military service of the United States and not as newly appointed in the Army. (35 Stat., 66.) Looking at the language of this act it will be found that the members of the Medical…
1Opinion of the CourtHat, Judge
This is a suit brought by a first lieutenant in the Medical Reserve Corps of the United States Army for longevity pay under the act of June 30, 1882, 22 Stats., 112. The plaintiff claims that he should be allowed longevity pay for his services as contract surgeon from October 1,1903, to July 21, 1908. The petition was dismissed, and the plaintiff now moves the court to gyant him a new trial.
On October 1, 1903, the plaintiff entered into a contract with Col. Charles Smart, Assistant Surgeon General, United States Army, whereby he agreed to perform the services of a medical officer in…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- United States v. HendeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- United States v. La TourretteSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Bowie v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1909
- Byrnes v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1891
3Cited by2 opinions
- Carroll v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1948
- Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railway Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1918