McClure v. United States
United States Court of Claims
This is an action like that of Rutherford’s (ante, 111), involving the construction of Revised Statutes, §§ 1556, 1588, as to the pay of retired officers of the Navy. The following are the facts found by the court: I. Claimant was commissio'ned a lieutenant in the Navy February 22, 1867. II. He was placed on the retired list November 9,1868, because he was not recommended for promotion, and has ever since been borne on said list. III.
Read the full summary
This is an action like that of Rutherford’s (ante, 111), involving the construction of Revised Statutes, §§ 1556, 1588, as to the pay of retired officers of the Navy. The following are the facts found by the court: I. Claimant was commissio'ned a lieutenant in the Navy February 22, 1867. II. He was placed on the retired list November 9,1868, because he was not recommended for promotion, and has ever since been borne on said list. III. From July 15, 1870, to June 30, 1875, he was paid at the rate of $1,300 a year. Since June 30, 1875, he has been paid at the rate of $1,200 a yea,r.
1Opinion of the Court 1
*348OPINION.
2Opinion of the Court · ScofieldScofield, J.
The claimant was commissioned a lieutenant in the Navy February 22,1867. After serving in that capacity about twenty and one-half months, he was placed on the retired list because he was not recommended for j>romotion in conformity to the Act of April 21, 1864 (13 Stat. L., 63). ,
The question is whether his retired pay shall be $1,200 or $1,300 a year.
The law provides (Eev. Stat., § 1688) that his pay shall be equal to u one-half the sea-pay provided for the grade or rank held by him at the time of his retirement.” The sea-pay of a lieutenant during the first five years of service is…
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hawkins v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1904