Faust v. United States
United States Court of Claims
The Reporters’ statement of the case: The facts of the case sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. What is claimed, in the present case is precisely what was conceded in the Roget case (148 U. S. B,., 171) to be proper — • i. e., (to use the language of the Supreme Court) “ pay during the time he performed active service, as though he were on the active list, including the longevity increase provided for by the act of 1870.” The question of the rate of pay of a…
Read the full summary
The Reporters’ statement of the case: The facts of the case sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. What is claimed, in the present case is precisely what was conceded in the Roget case (148 U. S. B,., 171) to be proper — • i. e., (to use the language of the Supreme Court) “ pay during the time he performed active service, as though he were on the active list, including the longevity increase provided for by the act of 1870.” The question of the rate of pay of a retired officer performing no active duty is not raised in this case. Hence the citation of the Roget case by the…
1Opinion of the CourtAtkinson, J.
The claimant, William IT. Faust, entered the service of the United States Navy as a naval cadet September 28, 1882, and has remained continuously in the service since that date. July 1, 1888, he ivas commissioned ensign; was promoted lieutenant (junior grade) November 10, 1896; was made a lieutenant March 3,1899. September 23,1899, he was placed on the retired list of the Navy in conformity with the provisions of section 1453 of the Revised Statutes. While on the retired list he was ordered to report for active duty on shore July 1, 1902, and in conformity with such order he reported for…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Thornley v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Thornley v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1883
- Roget v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Rutherford v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1883
3Cited by1 opinion
- Carroll v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1948