Morrison v. United States
United States Court of Claims
On the Proofs. The Reporters’ statement of tbe case: The court found the following facts: 1. The claimant was appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, first lieutenant in the Tenth Regiment of Cavalry, June 11, 1868. 2. On the 31st of May, 1875, he was appointed regimental quartermaster, by the following order: [“General Orders No. 5.] “Headquarters Tenth Cavalry, "Fort Concho, Texas, May 31,1875. “First Lieut.
Read the full summary
On the Proofs. The Reporters’ statement of tbe case: The court found the following facts: 1. The claimant was appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, first lieutenant in the Tenth Regiment of Cavalry, June 11, 1868. 2. On the 31st of May, 1875, he was appointed regimental quartermaster, by the following order: [“General Orders No. 5.] “Headquarters Tenth Cavalry, "Fort Concho, Texas, May 31,1875. “First Lieut. John T. Morrison, 10th Cavalry is, subject to the approval of the Secretary of War, hereby appointed regimental quartermaster (vice Beck,…
1Opinion of the Court
Richardson, J.,
delivered tbe opinion of tbe court:
This case is understood to be a class case, tbe final decision of which, settling tbe construction of a statute under which many officers of tbe Army are paid, renders it of importance to others than tbe present claimant, and involves pecuniary interests beyond tbe amount here in controversy.
Tbe claimant was regimental quartermaster of tbe Tenth Regiment of Cavalry, and as such officer received tbe salary of' $1,800 a year, to which be was entitled by Revised Statutes,, § 1261.
On tbe 22d of October, 1875, be was assigned to duty as assistant…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Grealish v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1885