United States v. Engard
Supreme Court of the United States
APPEAL FROM .THE COURT OF CLAIMS. Somewhat condensing the facts below found, they are as follows: In February, 1897, Chief Engineer Albert C. Engard was performing duty as the chief engineer of the United States receiving ship Richmond, at League Island, Pennsylvania.
Read the full summary
APPEAL FROM .THE COURT OF CLAIMS. Somewhat condensing the facts below found, they are as follows: In February, 1897, Chief Engineer Albert C. Engard was performing duty as the chief engineer of the United States receiving ship Richmond, at League Island, Pennsylvania. On the eleventh of February he received the following order, from the Navy Department: ‘ ‘ Navy Department, “Washington, February 11, 1897.' “Sir: Report by letter, to the president of the-Steel Inspection-Board, navy yard, Washington, D. C., for temporary duty in connection with the inspection of steel tubes for the boilers of…
1Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice White,
after making the foregoing statement delivered the opinion of the court..A higher rate of pay is allowed to a chief engineer as well as to other naval officers when performing sea duty than when engaged ' on shore duty. Rev. Stat. §1556. And Rev. Stat. §1571 provides as follows: '..
“No service shall be regarded as. sea service except such as shall be performed at sea, under the orders bf a Department and in vessels employed by authority of law.”'
■The Government did not dispute at bar, however, that where an officer assigned to sea duty within the purview of the foregoing…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- United States v. SymondsSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- United States v. BarnetteSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
3Cited by3 opinions
- Leach v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1909
- Garrison v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1924
- Doyle v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1911