Hildeburn v. United States
United States Court of Claims
On the Proofs. The Reporters' statement of the case: The court found the following facts: I. The claimant was on January 3,1869, duly commissioned as captain in' the Third Cavalry Biegiment of the Army of the United States, and continued to hold said office and rank, and was so holding the same at the time of the issuance of the order hereinafter mentioned. II.
Read the full summary
On the Proofs. The Reporters' statement of the case: The court found the following facts: I. The claimant was on January 3,1869, duly commissioned as captain in' the Third Cavalry Biegiment of the Army of the United States, and continued to hold said office and rank, and was so holding the same at the time of the issuance of the order hereinafter mentioned. II. On January 2,1871 (which was on the week-day Monday), the following order was issued by the Secretary of War: [“General Orders No. 1.] “ War. Department, Adjutant-General’s Oeeioe, “ Washington, January 2,1871. “By direction of the…
1Opinion of the CourtNott, J.
In 1870, the Army having been reduced by the consolidation of regiments, there resulted a large number of supernumerary officers of the line, who were designated generally in Army, circles as “unattached.” Thus, if the First and the Twentieth Regiments had been consolidated by transferring to the former all the men' of the latter, all of its officers would have been “unattached,” though retaining their commissions and being still in the service. This condition of affairs being manifestly unadvisable, Congress provided for a reduction of the officers of the line by Act 15th July, 1870 (16…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Grambs v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1888
- Southern Pacific Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1924
- Duryea v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1881
- Williams v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1879