In re Schneider

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtSHIRAS
Citation37 L.Ed. 406,148 U.S. 162,13 S.Ct. 572
Decision Date14 March 1893
PartiesIn re SCHNEIDER

148 U.S. 162
13 S.Ct. 572
37 L.Ed. 406
In re SCHNEIDER. March 14, 1893.

[163]

Jeremiah M. Wilson, Wiliam F. Mattingly, and A. A. Hoehling, Jr., for petitioner. [Argument of Counsel from pages 163-166 intentionally omitted]

[166]

djQ Mr. Chief Justice FULLER. Leave to file petition for writs of habeas corpus and certiorari is denied. The ground of the application does not go to the jurisdiction or authority of the supreme court of the District, and mere error cannot be reviewed in this proceeding. Ex parte Parks, 93 U. S. 18; Ex parte Bigelow, 113 U. S. 328, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 542; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 935; Nielsen, Petitioner, 131 U. S. 176, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 672. Roget

v.

U S [13SCt555,148US167,37LEd408] 13 S.Ct. 555 148 U.S. 167 37 L.Ed. 408 ROGET v. UNITED STATES.

No. 80.
March 6, 1893.

Robert B. Lines and John Paul Jones, for appellant.

Attorney General Miller, for the United States.

Mr. Justice SHIRAS delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the court of claims, finding in favor of the United States, and dismissing the petition of the claimant, Eugenia A. Roget, executrix of Edward A. Roget, deceased. Edward A. Roget was a professor of mathematics in the United States navy, having been commissioned July 8, 1864, to rank from May 21, 1864. On August 1st of that year, being then 62 years of age, he was placed upon the retired list, in accordance with the act of congress approved December 21, 1861, (12 St. p. 329,) which contains the following provisions:

'That whenever the name of any naval officer now in service, or who may hereafter be in the service, of the United States, shall have been borne on the naval register forty-five years, or shall be of the age of sixty-two years, he shall be

Page 168

retired from active service, and his name entered on the retired list of officers of the grade to which he belonged at the time of such retirement.

'Sec. 2. And be it further enacted that the president of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized to assign any officer who may be retired under the preceding section of this act to shore duty, and such officer thus assigned shall receive the full shore pay of his grade while so employed.'

'Sec. 5. And be it further enacted that all officers retired under the provisions of this act shall receive the retired pay of their respective grades as fixed by law.'

Under the same act he was continued on active duty until June 30, 1873.

On July 15, 1870, a naval appropriation act was approved, (16 St. p. 331,) the third section of which contains, among other provisions, the following:

'That from and after the thirtieth day of June, eighteen hundred and seventy, the annual pay of the officers of the navy on the active list shall be as follows:

* * *

'Professors of mathematics and civil engineers, during the first five years after date of appointment, when on duty, two thousand four hundred dollars; on leave or waiting orders, one thousand five hundred dollars; during the second five years after such date, when on duty, two thousand seven hundred dollars; on leave or waiting orders, one thousand eight hundred dollars; during the third five years after such date, when on duty, three thousand dollars; on leave or waiting orders, two thousand one hundred dollars; after fifteen years from such date, when on duty, three thousand five hundred dollars; on leave or waiting orders, two thousand six hundred dollars.'

While performing active service, Prof. Roget received the full shore pay of his grade, including the increase after five years' service at the rate so provided for. On June 30, 1873, he was relieved from active service, in accordance with the naval appropriation act of March 3, 1873, (17 St. p. 547,) which provides,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 practice notes
  • Dorsey v. Gill, No. 8811.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 26 Febrero 1945
    ...10 Cir., 126 F.2d 585; Friedberg v. United States, 5 Cir., 69 F.2d 170; United States v. Davis, 18 App.D.C. 280, 283; In re Schneider, 148 U.S. 162, 13 S.Ct. 572, 37 L.Ed. 406; See Holtzoff Collateral Review of Convictions in Federal Courts, 25 B.U.L.Rev. 26, 92 Adams v. United States ex re......
  • Patton v. United States, No. 53
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 14 Abril 1930
    ...District, or, rather, is it not an allegation of mere error? If the latter, it cannot be reviewed in this proceeding. In re Schneider, 148 U. S. 162, 13 S. Ct. 572, 37 L. Ed. 404, and cases cited.' After reviewing authorities, it was held that the Supreme Court of the District had jurisdict......
  • In re Petition of Blades, 6661
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 11 Enero 1939
    ...selecting the trial jury is not a question that can be reviewed in a habeas corpus proceeding. (29 C. J., sec. 39, p. 48; In re Schneider, 148 U.S. 162, 13 S.Ct. 572, 37 L.Ed. 406; Ex parte Wilkins, 7 Okla. Crim. 422, 115 P. 1118; In re McNaught, 1 Okla. Crim. 528, 99 P. 241; Commonwealth e......
  • Fowler v. Grimes, No. 14859.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • 12 Junio 1944
    ...in the case, and could not be reached by habeas corpus. Jugiro v. Brush, 140 U.S. 291, 11 S.Ct. 770, 35 L.Ed. 510; In re Schneider, 148 U.S. 162, 13 S.Ct. 572, 37 L.Ed. 406; Andersen v. Treat, 172 U.S. 24, 19 S.Ct. 67, 43 L.Ed. 351; Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309, 35 S.Ct. 582, 59 L.Ed. 969;......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
  • Dorsey v. Gill, No. 8811.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 26 Febrero 1945
    ...10 Cir., 126 F.2d 585; Friedberg v. United States, 5 Cir., 69 F.2d 170; United States v. Davis, 18 App.D.C. 280, 283; In re Schneider, 148 U.S. 162, 13 S.Ct. 572, 37 L.Ed. 406; See Holtzoff Collateral Review of Convictions in Federal Courts, 25 B.U.L.Rev. 26, 92 Adams v. United States ex re......
  • Patton v. United States, No. 53
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 14 Abril 1930
    ...District, or, rather, is it not an allegation of mere error? If the latter, it cannot be reviewed in this proceeding. In re Schneider, 148 U. S. 162, 13 S. Ct. 572, 37 L. Ed. 404, and cases cited.' After reviewing authorities, it was held that the Supreme Court of the District had jurisdict......
  • In re Petition of Blades, 6661
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 11 Enero 1939
    ...selecting the trial jury is not a question that can be reviewed in a habeas corpus proceeding. (29 C. J., sec. 39, p. 48; In re Schneider, 148 U.S. 162, 13 S.Ct. 572, 37 L.Ed. 406; Ex parte Wilkins, 7 Okla. Crim. 422, 115 P. 1118; In re McNaught, 1 Okla. Crim. 528, 99 P. 241; Commonwealth e......
  • Fowler v. Grimes, No. 14859.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • 12 Junio 1944
    ...in the case, and could not be reached by habeas corpus. Jugiro v. Brush, 140 U.S. 291, 11 S.Ct. 770, 35 L.Ed. 510; In re Schneider, 148 U.S. 162, 13 S.Ct. 572, 37 L.Ed. 406; Andersen v. Treat, 172 U.S. 24, 19 S.Ct. 67, 43 L.Ed. 351; Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309, 35 S.Ct. 582, 59 L.Ed. 969;......
  • 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