United States v. Engard

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search


United States v. Engard
Syllabus
Court Documents
Opinion of the Court

United States Supreme Court

196 U.S. 511

UNITED STATES  v.  ENGARD

 Argued: January 18, 1905. --- Decided: February 20, 1905

Somewhat condensing the facts below found, they are as follows: In February, 1897, Chief Engineer Albert C. Engard was performing duty as the chief engineer of the United States receiving ship Richmond, at League Island, Pennsylvania. On the 11th of February he received the following order from the Navy Department:

Navy Department,

Washington, February 11, 1897.

Sir:--

Report by letter, to the president of the steel inspection board, Navy Yard, Washington, D. C., for temporary duty in connection with the inspection of steel tubes for the boilers of torpedo boat No. 11, at Findlay, Ohio, and at Shelby, Ohio.

You are authorized to perform such travel between League Island, Pa., and Findlay, Ohio, and between League Island, Pa., and Shelby, Ohio, as may be necessary in the performance of this duty.

Keep a memorandum of the travel so performed by you, certifying to its necessity, and submit the same to the Department, from time to time, for its approval.

This duty is in addition to your present duties.

Very respectfully,

W. McAdoo, Acting Secretary.

Chief Engineer Albert C. Engard, U.S. Navy, U.S. R. S. Richmond, Navy Yard, League Island, Pa.

Complying with this order, Chief Engineer Engard made two round trips between League Island and Ohio, in order to discharge the additional duty referred to in the order. The total number of days in which he was engaged in this work between February 24, 1897, and August 14, 1897, was 122. On the application to be allowed mileage for the trips amounting to $172.80, the auditor of the Navy Department deducted from the claim $133.70, and allowed only $39.10. The sum disallowed was deducted on the theory that the chief engineer was only entitled to be paid for shore duty instead of for sea service during the time referred to. This suit was brought to recover the amount of the deduction, and the right to so recover was sustained by the court of claims. 38 Ct. Cl. 712.

John Q. Thompson and assistant Attorney General Pradt for appellant.

Messrs. William B. King, George A. King, and Joseph C. Stebbins for appellee.

Mr. Justice White, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court:

Notes[edit]

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).