Scheid v. United States
United States Court of Claims
The Reporter's statement of tlie case: The case is in all essential respects identical with Eolthaus v. United States, No. 28332, no opinion. Holthaus served by oral order as clerk to the commanding officer of the Marine Barracks, Washington, D. C., and this court held him entitled to extra-duty pay therefor. That case is discussed and was followed in Narhle's case, 14 Comp. Dec. 152. The comptroller appears to have overlooked those cases in rejecting this.
Read the full summary
The Reporter's statement of tlie case: The case is in all essential respects identical with Eolthaus v. United States, No. 28332, no opinion. Holthaus served by oral order as clerk to the commanding officer of the Marine Barracks, Washington, D. C., and this court held him entitled to extra-duty pay therefor. That case is discussed and was followed in Narhle's case, 14 Comp. Dec. 152. The comptroller appears to have overlooked those cases in rejecting this. The comptroller relies upon paragraph 446 of a book entitled “System of Accountability, U. S. Marine Corps,” which says that “ enlisted…
1Opinion of the CourtDowney, Judge
The plaintiff in this case, during the period in question, was an enlisted man in the Marine Corps, and he seeks to recover extra-duty pay at the rate of 35 cents per day for services performed as clerk in the first sergeant’s office from *255July 16 to September 80,1904, and as sergeant major’s clerk from October 1, 1904, to January 31, 1905, and as clerk in the commanding officer’s office from February 2 to 28, 1905, all at the Marine Barracks, League Island, Pennsylvania. It appears that this service was performed pursuant to verbal orders of the commanding officer. The claim is predicated…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- United States v. RossSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Ross v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1913
3Cited by1 opinion
- Holdridge v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1922