United States v. Moore

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtSWAYNE
Citation24 L.Ed. 588,95 U.S. 760
PartiesUNITED STATES v. MOORE
Decision Date01 October 1877

95 U.S. 760
24 L.Ed. 588
UNITED STATES
v.
MOORE.
October Term, 1877

APPEAL from the Court of Claims.

This was an action in the Court of Claims by Andrew M. Moore against the United States to recover certain pay which he alleged was due him as an officer in the navy.

That court found the following facts:——

1. On the 12th of April, 1869, the claimant was appointed and commissioned an assistant-surgeon in the navy of the United States.

2. On the 24th of February, 1874, after examination, he was found qualified for promotion to the grade of surgeon. He was, on the following day, notified by the Secretary of the Navy that the report of the board of examiners, before whom he had appeared for examination, was approved by the department, and that from that date he would be regarded as a passed assistant-surgeon; and from that date up to the date of the institution of this suit, May 3, 1876, he received pay as passed assistant-surgeon in the first five years after appointment as such.

3. From the 12th of April, 1874, till May 3, 1876, the claimant's service was as follows: On shore-duty, four hundred and thirty-eight days, for which he was paid at the rate of $1,800 per annum; on leave or waiting orders, three hundred and twenty-three days, for which he was paid at the rate of $1,500 per a num.

Upon the foregoing facts the court, being equally divided in opinion, held pro forma, for the purposes of an appeal, that the claimant was entitled to the rate of pay established by law for a passed assistant-surgeon, after five years from the date of

Page 761

appointment; that is to say, when on shore-duty, at the rate of $2,000 per annum, and when on leave or waiting orders, at the rate of $1,700 per annum; and that the claimant was therefore entitled to receive, for the seven hundred and sixty-one days specified, the additional sum of $409.5, for which judgment was entered.

The United States appealed.

Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Smith for the United States.

Mr. John B. Sanborn and Mr. Charles King, contra.

Mr. JUSTICE SWAYNE delivered the opinion of the court.

On the 12th of April, 1869, the appellee was appointed an assistant-surgeon in the navy of the United States. On the 24th of February, 1874, he was examined for promotion to the grade of surgeon. On the following day, he was notified by the Secretary of the Navy that the report of the board of examiners was approved by the department, and that from that date he would be regarded as a passed assistant-surgeon. From that time up to the institution of this suit he received the pay fixed by law for passed assistant-surgeons during the first five years after their appointment as such.

The statutes of the United States provides as follows:——

'The active list of the medical corps of the navy shall consist of fifteen medical directors, fifteen medical inspectors, fifty surgeons, and one hundred assistant-surgeons.' Rev. Stat., sect. 1368. 'No person shall be appointed surgeon until he has served as an assistant-surgeon at least two years on board a public vessel of the United States at sea, nor until he has been examined and approved for such appointment by a board of naval surgeons designated by the Secretary of the Navy.' Id., sect. 1370. 'The commissioned...

To continue reading

Request your trial
201 practice notes
  • FREE ENT. FUND v. PUBLIC CO. ACCTG. OVERSIGHT BD., No. 08-861.
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • December 7, 2009
    ...18 L.Ed. 830 (1868); (4 & 5) an "assistant-surgeon" and a "cadet-engineer" appointed by the Secretary of the Navy, United States v. Moore, 95 U.S. 760, 762, 24 L.Ed. 588 (1878); Perkins, 116 U.S., at 484, 6 S.Ct. 449; (6) election monitors, Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 397-399, 25 L.Ed. ......
  • Barnett v. Weinberger, No. 81-2122
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • May 15, 1987
    ...Brown v. United States, 113 U.S. 568, 571, 5 S.Ct. 648, 650, 28 L.Ed. 1079, 1080 (1885) ("great respect"); United States v. Moore, 95 U.S. 760, 763 (5 Otto), 24 L.Ed. 588, 589 (1877) ("most respectful 69 Norwegian Nitrogen Prods. Co. v. United States, 288 U.S. 294, 315, 53 S.Ct. 350, 358, 7......
  • Lewis v. U.S., No. 05-5155.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • August 14, 2006
    ...as the authority to appoint military officers can be delegated, see, e.g., Orloff, 345 US. at 90, 73 S.Ct. 534; United States v. Moore, 95 U.S. 760, 762, 24 L.Ed. 588 (1877); Dysart 1312, so too can the authority to decline to appoint officers. D'Arco v. United States, 194 Ct.Cl. 811, 441 F......
  • United States v. Winona & St. P.R. Co., 564.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • May 6, 1895
    ...But on questions similar to the one involved in this case they are entitled to great respect at the hands of any court. In U.S. v. Moore, 95 U.S. 760, 763, this court 'The construction [67 F. 964] given to a statute by those charged with the duty of executing it is always entitled to the mo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
201 cases
  • FREE ENT. FUND v. PUBLIC CO. ACCTG. OVERSIGHT BD., No. 08-861.
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • December 7, 2009
    ...& 5) an "assistant-surgeon" and a "cadet-engineer" appointed by the Secretary of the Navy, United States v. Moore, 95 U.S. 760, 762, 24 L.Ed. 588 (1878); Perkins, 116 U.S., at 484, 6 S.Ct. 449; (6) election monitors, Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 397-399, 25 L.Ed. ......
  • Barnett v. Weinberger, No. 81-2122
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • May 15, 1987
    ...v. United States, 113 U.S. 568, 571, 5 S.Ct. 648, 650, 28 L.Ed. 1079, 1080 (1885) ("great respect"); United States v. Moore, 95 U.S. 760, 763 (5 Otto), 24 L.Ed. 588, 589 (1877) ("most respectful 69 Norwegian Nitrogen Prods. Co. v. United States, 288 U.S. 294, 315, 53 S.Ct. 35......
  • Lewis v. U.S., No. 05-5155.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • August 14, 2006
    ...as the authority to appoint military officers can be delegated, see, e.g., Orloff, 345 US. at 90, 73 S.Ct. 534; United States v. Moore, 95 U.S. 760, 762, 24 L.Ed. 588 (1877); Dysart 1312, so too can the authority to decline to appoint officers. D'Arco v. United States, 194 Ct.Cl. 811, 441 F......
  • United States v. Winona & St. P.R. Co., 564.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • May 6, 1895
    ...But on questions similar to the one involved in this case they are entitled to great respect at the hands of any court. In U.S. v. Moore, 95 U.S. 760, 763, this court 'The construction [67 F. 964] given to a statute by those charged with the duty of executing it is always entitled to the mo......
  • 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