Nicholas v. United States
United States Court of Claims
The Reporter's statement of the case: This case was heretofore decided (58 C. Cls., 463), and upon appeal to the Supreme Court an order was made remanding the case to this court. On October 27, 1919, this court set aside its former judgment with leave to the parties to take further proof.
Read the full summary
The Reporter's statement of the case: This case was heretofore decided (58 C. Cls., 463), and upon appeal to the Supreme Court an order was made remanding the case to this court. On October 27, 1919, this court set aside its former judgment with leave to the parties to take further proof. As claimant was removed in violation of law, he has never been lawfully removed from his office, and it follows that he is entitled to the salary of the office just as if he had not been evicted. Fitzsimmons v. Broolclyn, 102 N. Y., 536; United States v. Wichersham, 201 U. S., 390; Garvey v. Lowell, 199…
1Opinion of the CourtHay, Judge
The plaintiff was an inspector of customs at the port of Baltimore, receiving $4.00 per diem. During the year 1911 the Secretary of the Treasury- appointed a committee to examine into and report upon the conduct of the customs service at the port of Baltimore. On August 24, 1911, that committee reported to the Secretary, among other things, that the plaintiff should be dismissed from the service, whereupon the Secretary of the Treasury on February 19, 1913, directed in writing the collector of customs at Baltimore to remove the plaintiff from the service “ on account of the use of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Ide v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1890
3Cited by9 opinions
- Simon v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1949
- Cason v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1972
- Jackson v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1967
- Hart v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1940
- O'Neil v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1921
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.