United States v. Kelly

Decision Date01 December 1872
PartiesUNITED STATES v. KELLY
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

THIS was an appeal by the United States from a judgment of the Court of Claims, in favor of one Kelly, lately a soldier in the army of the United States, for an unpaid balance of bounty money.

The claim was denied by the pay department, on the ground that the bounty had been forfeited by desertion The case as found by the court was, that the petitioner had deserted, but was restored to duty by order of his department commander, without trial, on condition that he make good the time lost, about two months; that he complied with the condition, and was honorably discharged at the expiration of his term of service.

Upon this case, Mr. N. P. Chipman, for the soldier, and in support of the ruling below, made a very full examination of the acts of Congress, and on an exhibit of their provisions, argued that there was nothing in any of them prohibiting the payment of bounty money to a soldier who had deserted, irrespectively of the circumstances of his desertion; that desertion, being sometimes a mere technical desertion, and without cowardice or disaffection to the service, did not per se so taint the status of the soldier, as to render him necessarily and without any judicial proceedings absolutely disqualified to receive bounty; nor was it under every circumstance such an act that his contract with the government was wholly and ipso facto dissolved, and that he could never return, and by performance of service properly thereafter—which service should be accepted—set up a condonation of his offence. The counsel argued that any other view would lead to the worst consequences in an army of a million of troops, called out as our troops were during the rebellion; troops comprising officers and men of inexperienced years; both officers and soldiers unacquainted with the laws of war; the soldiers especially unacquainted with the rigors of discipline, unused to the restraints which capricious or incompetent superior officers could enforce; not schooled nor proof against the evil influences of depraved associates, and liable, under some physical suffering or discouragement, or inadvertence, to commit an offence the gravity of which was not comprehended, and the penalty for which had not been understood or appreciated. The counsel fortified his views as to the effect of desertion in such a case as the one before the court by references to the third edition, published in 1868, of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • United States v. Malanaphy
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • June 2, 1948
    ...that he had not committed any offense, the case of United States v. Landers, 92 U.S. 77, 23 L.Ed. 603, shows that United States v. Kelly, 15 Wall. 34, 82 U.S. 34, 21 L.Ed. 106, did not go so far as Order reversed with directions to dismiss the writ and remand the relator to the custody of t......
  • Marshall v. Wyman
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • June 4, 1955
    ...United States ex rel. Roberson v. Keating, D.C.1949, 121 F.Supp. 477; Reid v. U. S., D.C.1908, 161 F. 469; U. S. v. Kelly, 1872, 15 Wall. 34, 82 U.S. 34, 21 L.Ed. 106. The discharge is not subject to collateral attack, Reid v. U. S., supra; Nordmann v. Woodring, D.C. 1939, 28 F.Supp. 573; E......
  • The State v. Taylor
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 18, 1922
    ...143 F. 729; Buckley v. United States, 4 How. 251; Can Co. v. United States, 240 F. 903; State v. Blaisdell, 33 N.H. 388; United States v. Kelly, 15 Wall. 34; States v. Landers, 92 U.S. 77; Com. v. Mertz, 27 Ind. 103; Fitchburg v. Lunenburg, 102 Mass. 358; Matthew v. Bowman, 25 Me. 157; Stat......
  • Bernstein v. Herren
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • January 4, 1956
    ...1045, 1049, 97 L.Ed. 1508. An honorable discharge is a formal final judgment on the military record of a soldier. United States v. Kelly, 15 Wall. 34, 82 U.S. 34, 21 L.Ed. 106; In re Fong Chew Chung, 9 Cir., 149 F.2d 904; Ex parte Drainer, D.C., 65 F.Supp. 410, affirmed, 9 Cir., 158 F.2d 98......
  • 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