Test v. United States
United States Court of Claims
The Reporter’s statement of tbe case: As no appeal would .lie írom tbe judgment in this ease, no findings of fact were filed) tbe facts, however, will be found in tbe opinion of tbe court.
Read the full summary
The Reporter’s statement of tbe case: As no appeal would .lie írom tbe judgment in this ease, no findings of fact were filed) tbe facts, however, will be found in tbe opinion of tbe court. We understand the contention of the Government' to be, that “per diem allowance, in lieu of subsistence,” can only be claimed when sucli special agent is traveling, or in tbe field, on duty as such, and can not be claimed when such special agent is performing bis duty as such at bis place of abode. Tbe case, therefore, resolves itself into determining whether any sucli contention as that set up by…
1Opinion of the Court
Richardson, Ch. J.,
delivered the opinion of the court:
This case raises two questions as to the compensation of special agents under the provisions of section 18 of the census act (1889, March 1, chap. 319, amended by the act of 1890, April 3, chap. 61, 1 Supp. Rev. Stat., 2d ed., pp. 659, 711). The section, after providing for the appointment of special agents, reads as follows, as amended:
“They shall receive compensation at rates to be fixed by the Superintendent of the Census, with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior: Provided, That the same shall in no tuvse exceed six dollars…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Ebert v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1894