United States v. McDonald
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | LAMAR |
| Citation | 32 L.Ed. 506,9 S.Ct. 117,128 U.S. 471 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. MCDONALD |
| Decision Date | 26 November 1888 |
Page 472
Asst. Atty. Gen. Howard and F. P. Dewees, for appellant.
Robert B. Lines and John Paul Jones, for appellee.
LAMAR, J.
This is an appeal by the United States from a judgment of the court of claims. The appellee, Joseph McDonald, (plaintiff below,) a boatswain in the navy, on the 21st of June, 1876, was ordered by Rear-Admiral Werden, commanding at Callao, Peru, 'to proceed to your home in the United States, and, upon your arival, report to the honorable, the secretary of the navy.' Pursuant to said order, McDonald traveled from Callao to Washington, via Panama, and reported as directed. By act June 16, 1874. (18 St. 72,) 'only actual traveling expenses' were 'allowed to any person holding employment or appointment under the United States.' By act June 30, 1876, (19 St. 65,) so much of the preceding act as was 'applicable to officers of the navy' was repealed, 'and the sum of 8 cents per mile' was 'allowed such officers' 'in lieu of their actual expenses.' The journey from Calloa to Panama was made prior to June 30, 1876, and from Panama to Washington after that date. He was paid his actual traveling expenses for the whole distance, to-wit, $256.60, under the first section of the act of June 16, 1874. McDonald claimed that he should have received 8 cents per mile for the distance actually traveled, under the act of June 30, 1876, which would have been $368, or $111.40 in excess of the amount received by him. The treasury department having refused to accede to his
Page 473
demand, he brought suit in the court of claims against the United States to recover said sum of $111.40. That court held that McDonald should receive only his actual expenses for that part of his journey performed prior to the passage of the act of June 30, 1876, to-wit, from Calloa to Panama, and mileage for that portion performed after the passage of said last-mentioned act, to-wit, from Panama to Washington; and rendered judgment in his favor accordingly for $74; that amount being the excess of such mileage from Panama to Washington, over and above his actual traveling expenses for that portion of his journey. An appeal by the United States from this judgment brings the case here.
It is contended on behalf of the United States that the order was made, and the travel undertaken, while the law of 1874 was in force, and therefore with the understanding that only actual...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chambers v. United States, No. 141-70.
...10 How. 402, 13 L.Ed. 472; Stone v. Mississippi, supra 101 U.S. 814, 25 L.Ed. 1079; Cooley\'s Const. Lim. 283; United States v. McDonald, 128 U.S. 471, 473, 9 S.Ct.Rep. 117. Id. at 108, 10 S.Ct. at Again, in Taylor v. Beckham, 178 U.S. 548, 20 S.Ct. 890, 44 L.Ed. 1187 (1900), the Supreme Co......
-
Motions Systems Corp. v. Bush, No. 04-1428.
...v. United States, 100 U.S. 680, 685, 25 L.td. 772 (1879) (referring to "[n]o officer except the President"); United States v. McDonald, 128 U.S. 471, 473, 24 Ct.Cl. 524, 9 S.Ct. 117, 32 L.Ed. 506 (1888) (quoting Embry); United States v. Am. Bell Tel., 128 U.S. 315, 363, 9 S.Ct. 90, 32 L.Ed.......
-
Marriage of Karlin, In re
...v. Teller, 107 U.S. 64, 2 S.Ct. 39, 27 L.Ed. 352; Walton v. Cotton, 19 How. 355, 60 U.S. 355, 15 L.Ed. 658; United States v. McDonald, 128 U.S. 471, 9 S.Ct. 117, 32 L.Ed. 506; Crenshaw v. United States, 134 U.S. 99, 10 S.Ct. 431, 33 L.Ed. 825; Norman v. United States, 392 F.2d 255, 183 Ct.C......
-
Norman v. United States, No. 295-62
...S.Ct. 1230, 6 L.Ed.2d 365 (1961); Cf. Leonard v. United States, 279 U.S. 40, 49 S.Ct. 232, 73 L.Ed. 604 (1929); United States v. McDonald, 128 U.S. 471, 9 S.Ct. 117, 32 L.Ed. 506 (1888); Byrd v. United States, 103 Ct.Cl. 285 (1945); Anchanitzky v. United States, 81 Ct.Cl. 409, cert. denied,......
-
Chambers v. United States, No. 141-70.
...10 How. 402, 13 L.Ed. 472; Stone v. Mississippi, supra 101 U.S. 814, 25 L.Ed. 1079; Cooley\'s Const. Lim. 283; United States v. McDonald, 128 U.S. 471, 473, 9 S.Ct.Rep. 117. Id. at 108, 10 S.Ct. at Again, in Taylor v. Beckham, 178 U.S. 548, 20 S.Ct. 890, 44 L.Ed. 1187 (1900), the Supreme Co......
-
Motions Systems Corp. v. Bush, No. 04-1428.
...v. United States, 100 U.S. 680, 685, 25 L.td. 772 (1879) (referring to "[n]o officer except the President"); United States v. McDonald, 128 U.S. 471, 473, 24 Ct.Cl. 524, 9 S.Ct. 117, 32 L.Ed. 506 (1888) (quoting Embry); United States v. Am. Bell Tel., 128 U.S. 315, 363, 9 S.Ct. 90, 32 L.Ed.......
-
Marriage of Karlin, In re
...v. Teller, 107 U.S. 64, 2 S.Ct. 39, 27 L.Ed. 352; Walton v. Cotton, 19 How. 355, 60 U.S. 355, 15 L.Ed. 658; United States v. McDonald, 128 U.S. 471, 9 S.Ct. 117, 32 L.Ed. 506; Crenshaw v. United States, 134 U.S. 99, 10 S.Ct. 431, 33 L.Ed. 825; Norman v. United States, 392 F.2d 255, 183 Ct.C......
-
Norman v. United States, No. 295-62
...S.Ct. 1230, 6 L.Ed.2d 365 (1961); Cf. Leonard v. United States, 279 U.S. 40, 49 S.Ct. 232, 73 L.Ed. 604 (1929); United States v. McDonald, 128 U.S. 471, 9 S.Ct. 117, 32 L.Ed. 506 (1888); Byrd v. United States, 103 Ct.Cl. 285 (1945); Anchanitzky v. United States, 81 Ct.Cl. 409, cert. denied,......