Baker v. McCarl, 4596.
| Decision Date | 05 March 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 4596.,4596. |
| Citation | 24 F.2d 897 |
| Parties | BAKER v. McCARL, U. S. Comptroller General, et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
W. J. Neale, Frank Davis, Jr., and W. D. Harris, all of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
O. R. McGuire, Peyton Gordon, and L. A. Rover, all of Washington, D. C., for appellees.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, ROBB, Associate Justice, and SMITH, Judge of United States Court of Customs Appeals.
Appeal from a decree in the Supreme Court of the District dismissing appellant's bill to restrain appellees from withholding from appellant's salary amounts ascertained by the Comptroller General to be due the United States.
Appellant is a lieutenant commander in the United States Navy, retired. Congress has appropriated funds covering his pay and allowances, and these funds are now in the possession of a disbursing officer of the Navy and available for the purposes for which they were appropriated. Payment has been withheld because of a decision of the Comptroller General that appellant is indebted to the United States in the amount of $6,367.88, covering salary paid him as an Inspector of Hulls for the period from April 7, 1917, to January 26, 1920, and in the amount of $1,383.33, for rental allowances paid him while on active duty for the period from May 6, 1924, to June 30, 1925, making in all $7,751.21.
It is not seriously contended in behalf of appellees that our decisions in McCarl v. Cox, 56 App. D. C. 27, 8 F.(2d) 669, and in McCarl v. Pence, 57 App. D. C. 159, 18 F.(2d) 809, are not controlling here, providing that appellant is "in equity with clean hands." In the cases cited we ruled, after a careful consideration of the question involved, that an alleged debt due the United States on account of overpayments cannot be deducted by the Comptroller General from the pay of an officer of the Navy or Army.
In this case appellant has earned and there is actually due him the salary and allowances he claims, but the Comptroller General attempts to withhold payment because of his conclusion that in prior and unrelated transactions appellant overreached the United States and thereby secured from it the sum mentioned. While the maxim, "He who comes into equity must come with clean hands," has wide application, it has its limitations as well. As observed by Judge Sanborn in Talbot v. Independent Order of Owls (C. C. A.) 220 F. 660: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
SJ Groves & Sons Co. v. Warren
...duty to pay money. McCarl v. Cox, 56 App.D.C. 27, 8 F.2d 669; Dane v. United States, 57 App. D.C. 161, 18 F.2d 811; Baker v. McCarl, 58 App.D.C. 69, 24 F.2d 897; McCarl v. United States, 58 App.D.C. 319, 30 F.2d 561; McCarl v. Wylly, 1 Cir., 5 F.2d 964. 2. Where parties to a building and co......
-
Comptroller General Warren to Administrator of Veterans
... ... the united states. See smith v. Jackson, 246 U.S. 388; mccarl ... v. Cox, 8 F.2d 669; mccarl v. Pence, 18 F.2d 809; baker v ... Mccarl, 24 F.2d 897, 39 op ... ...
-
Secretary of Defense, B-168236
...the debtor. As a general rule retired or retainer pay is not subject to administrative set-off without the debtor's consent. Baker v mccarl, 24 F.2d 897(1928). melvile v United States, 23 Ct. Cl. 74 (1888), the secretary of the navy, during the absence of the naval officer on an arctic expl......
-
Colonel Donald C. Nichols
...However, as a general rule, retired or retainer pay is not subject to administrative setoff without the debtor's consent. See baker v. Mccarl, 24 F.2d 897 (1928) and 47 Comp.Gen. 400 (1968). Thus, as can be seen there limitations on actions which May be taken by the government. Furthermore,......