Legal Opinion

Maxwell v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided February 9, 1914No. 31246Published

On the Proofs. The Reporter’s statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The claimant, Alfred J. Maxwell, was on and prior to March 7, 1911, a clerk in the Subsistence Department of the Army, which position he had held since August 2, 1906, and was on duty at Fort ftiley, Kans., a post where he had been serving for about two years. II.

Read the full summary

On the Proofs. The Reporter’s statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The claimant, Alfred J. Maxwell, was on and prior to March 7, 1911, a clerk in the Subsistence Department of the Army, which position he had held since August 2, 1906, and was on duty at Fort ftiley, Kans., a post where he had been serving for about two years. II. On March 7, 1911, the following telegraphic order was issued by the Commissary General of the Army to the commandant of Fort Riley, Kans.: “ Secretary War directs Clerk Maxwell proceed to San Antonio at once,…

1Opinion of the CourtAtkiNSON, Judge

This is a suit by a civilian clerk in the Subsistence Department of the Army to recover for expenses incurred by him for board, lodgings, and laundry between April 9 and July 20,1911, while performing temporary duty in the office of the chief commissary at San Antonio, Tex. The claimant had held the position of civilian clerk in the Subsistence Department at large since August 2,1906, and on March 9,1911, Was on duty at Fort Eiley, Kans., where he had been since March 24,1909. On March 7,1909, the Commissary General recommended that he, together with other civilian clerks in the same service,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Jones v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
  2. Runkle v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
  3. United States v. EliasonSupreme Court of the United States · 1842
  4. Wolsey v. ChapmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
  5. In re BrodieCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1904

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API