United States v. Nelson Vulte

Citation34 S.Ct. 664,233 U.S. 509,58 L.Ed. 1071
Decision Date10 March 1914
Docket NumberNo. 256,256
PartiesUNITED STATES, Appt., v. NELSON P. VULTE
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Assistant Attorney General Thompson for appellant.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 509-511 intentionally omitted] Messrs. George A. King and William B. King for appellee.

Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court:

The appellee, Nelson P. Vulte, filed a petition in the court of claims claiming to be entitled to $299.78, being 10 per cent of his regular pay for service beyond the seas. Judgment was entered in his favor for that amount, and the United States prosecuted this appeal.

The court found the following facts: Vulte was appointed second lieutenant in the Marine Corps June 30, 1893, and was promoted to first lieutenant March 3, 1904. Under orders assigning him for duty in Porto Rico with station at San Juan, he sailed from New York for Porto Rico June 27, 1908, and served there until November 3, 1909, when he was detached and ordered back to the United States. He was four days on the return voyage.

If it is held that he is entitled to 10 per cent for services in Porto Rico from the date of sailing from New York until the date of his detachment from duty at San Juan, there would accrue to him the sum of $296.72, and an additional sum of $3.06 if entitled to pay en route from Porto Rico to New York.

Vulte's pay was originally fixed by § 1612 of the Revised Statutes (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 1096) as follows: 'The officers of the Marine Corps shall be entitled to receive the same pay and allowances, and the enlisted men shall be entitled to receive the same pay and bounty for re-enlisting, as are or may be provided by or in pursuance of law for the officers and enlisted men of like grades in the Infantry of the Army.'

On June 30, 1902 (32 Stat. at L. 512, chap. 1328, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1911, p. 339), as part of the appropriation act for the Army, Congress modified existing law respecting the pay proper of officers of this grade by the following language: 'For additional ten per centum increase on pay of commissioned officers serving at foreign stations, four hundred and fifty-one thousand, four hundred and fifty-six dollars: Provided, That hereafter the pay proper of all commissioned officers and enlisted men serving beyond the limits of the states comprising the Union and the territories of the United States contiguous thereto shall be increased ten per centum for officers and twenty per centum for enlisted men over and above the rates of pay proper as flxed by law for time of peace, and the time of such service shall be counted from the date of departure from said states to the date of return thereto.'

As observed by Mr. Justice Booth, delivering the opinion of the court of claims: 'Thus far the rights of plaintiff [Vulte] respecting pay are obvious; the complications arise by subsequent legislation.'

On June 12, 1906, Congress provided—'for additional ten per centum increase on pay of commissioned officers serving beyond the limits of the states comprising the Union and the territories of the United States contiguous thereto (except Porto Rico and Hawaii), as provided by act of June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and two, the time of such service to be counted from the date of departure from said states to the date of return thereto. . . .' (34 Stat. at L. 247, chap. 3078.)

This provision of the act of June 12, 1906, was repeated in the appropriation act of 1907. 34 Stat. at L. 1164, chap. 2511.

The act of May 11, 1908, provided as follows: 'That increase of pay for service beyond the limits of the states comprising the Union and the territories of the United States contiguous thereto shall be as now provided by law.

* * * * *

'For additional ten per centum increase on pay of officers on foreign service, two hundred and eighty-five thousand dollars.

* * * * *

'That nothing herein contained shall be construed so as to reduce the pay or allowances now authorized by law for any officer or enlisted man of the Army; and all laws or parts of laws inconsistent with the provisions of this act are hereby repealed.' 35 Stat. at L. 110, 114, chap. 163, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1911, pp. 341, 354.

The short point in the case is to what the words 'shall be as now provided by law' in the act of May 11, 1908, refer,—whether to the acts of 1906 and 1907, or more limitedly, we may say,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Me. Cmty. Health Options v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 27 Abril 2020
    ...The Government must point to "something more than the mere omission to appropriate a sufficient sum." United States v. Vulte , 233 U.S. 509, 515, 34 S.Ct. 664, 58 L.Ed. 1071 (1914) ; accord, GAO Redbook 2–63 ("The mere failure to appropriate sufficient funds is not enough"). The question, t......
  • Friends of the Earth v. Armstrong
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • 21 Enero 1974
    ...109 U.S. 146, 3 S.Ct. 151, 27 L.Ed. 887; Mathews v. United States, 123 U.S. 182, 8 S.Ct. 80, 31 L.Ed. 127 and United States v. Vulte, 233 U.S. 509, 34 S.Ct. 664, 58 L.Ed. 1071. The Court found the intention clear in Dickerson to suspend the allowance in the face of the statute authorizing i......
  • Moda Health Plan, Inc. v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • 14 Junio 2018
    ...of repeal, amendment, or suspension of substantive law to effect that purpose, as in Mitchell .In United States v. Vulte , 233 U.S. 509, 34 S.Ct. 664, 58 L.Ed. 1071 (1914), the Supreme Court considered a series of enactments concerning bonuses for Marine Corps officers serving abroad. A 190......
  • Ind. Mun. Power Agency v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Claims Court
    • 23 Julio 2021
    ...because, in part, "a mere failure to appropriate does not repeal or discharge an obligation to pay." Id. at 1324 (citing United States v. Vulte, 233 U.S. 509 (1914)). Relevant to the case at hand, the Supreme Court distinguished Maine Community Health from a "strand of precedent [that] turn......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT