United States v. Morrow, No. 98

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtSANFORD
Citation69 L.Ed. 425,45 S.Ct. 173,266 U.S. 531
PartiesUNITED STATES v. MORROW
Docket NumberNo. 98
Decision Date05 January 1925

266 U.S. 531
45 S.Ct. 173
69 L.Ed. 425
UNITED STATES

v.

MORROW.

No. 98.
Argued Oct. 21, 1924.
Decided Jan. 5, 1925.

Page 532

The Attorney General and Mr. Merrill E. Otis, of St. Joseph, Mo., for the United States.

Mr. George A. King, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Mr. Justice SANFORD delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case involves the construction of a proviso in the Army Appropriation Acts of 1914 and 1915, relating to an increase in the pay of clerks and messengers at headquarters of territorial departments. 38 Stat. 351, 355, c. 72; 38 Stat. 1062, 1067, c. 143.

This proviso follows a special appropriation made—in substantially identical language—in the two Acts. In the Act of 1915 this provision reads:

'Pay to Clerks, Messengers, and Laborers at Headquarters of the Several Territorial Departments, Territorial Districts, Tactical Divisions and Brigardes, Service Schools and Office of the Chief of Staff.

'One chief clerk, at the office of the Chief of Staff, $2,000 per annum. Fifteen clerks, at $1,800 each per annum. Fifteen clerks, at $1,600 each per annum. Thirty-eight

Page 533

clerks, at $1,400 each per annum. Seventy clerks, at $1,200 each per annum. Sixty-five clerks, at $1,000 each per annum. * * * Two messengers, at $840 each per annum. Fifty-nine messengers, at $720 each per annum. * * * One laborer, at $660 per annum. Two laborers, at $600 each per annum. One laborer, at $480 per annum. * * * In all, $312,320.

'Additional pay while on foreign service, $9,000.

'Provided, That on and after July first, nineteen hundred and fourteen, the pay of clerks and messengers at headquarters of territorial departments, tactical divisions, brigades, and service schools, who are citizens of the United States, shall be increased $200 each per annum while serving in the Philippine Islands, such service to be computed from the date of departure from the continental limits of the United States to the date of return. * * *

'And said clerks, messengers, and laborers shall be employed and assigned by the Secretary of War to the offices and positions in which they are to serve. * * *'

By a separate provision in the Act a lump sum appropriation of $1,833,127 was made for incidental expenses of the quartermaster corps, including the 'hire of laborers' and 'compensation of clerks and other employees to the officers' (page 363.)1

Morrow, a citizen of the United States, went to the Philippine Islands in 1899. From May 15, 1914, to January 17, 1917, he served as chief clerk of the depot quartermaster's office, at the headquarters of the Philippine Department of the Army, in Manila. He received a salary of $2,000 a year, which was fixed by the War Department and paid out of the lump sum appropriations for the quartermaster corps. Later he submitted to the Auditor a claim for additional pay at the rate of $200 a year for the period of his service after July 1, 1914, under

Page 534

the proviso in the acts increasing the pay of clerks and messengers at headquarters of territorial departments while serving in the Philippine Islands. This was allowed and paid; but was thereafter charged against him as having been erroneously paid, and deducted from the pay then accruing to him as a captain in the quartermaster's corps. Thereupon he brought this action to recover the amount claimed, and was awarded judgment. 58 Ct. Cl. 20.

It is conceded that Morrow was a clerk in the quartermaster corps, and not one of the headquarters2 clerks included within the first paragraph of the appropriation.

The contention of the United States3 is that the proviso applied only to the headquarters clerks and messengers employed at the statutory salaries fixed by the appropriation, and did not include clerks in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 practice notes
  • City & Cnty. of S.F. v. Sessions, Case No. 17-cv-04642-WHO
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • October 5, 2018
    ...[of a proviso] is confined to the subject-matter of the principal clause.’ " Id. (quoting 349 F.Supp.3d 955 United States v. Morrow , 266 U.S. 531, 534–535, 45 S.Ct. 173, 69 L.Ed. 425 (1925) ); see also Alabama Dep't of Revenue v. CSX Transp., Inc. , ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 1136, 1144–45, ......
  • Abbott v. United States, Nos. 09–479
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • November 15, 2010
    ...562 U.S. 26we have held, "is confined to the subject-matter of the principal clause" to which it is attached. United States v. Morrow, 266 U.S. 531, 534–535, 45 S.Ct. 173, 69 L.Ed. 425 (1925). As a proviso attached to § 924(c), the "except" clause is most naturally read to refer to the cond......
  • Engvall v. Soo Line Railroad Co., No. C6-99-64.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • August 2, 2001
    ...consider the "presence or absence" of a particular device, such as a fusible plug or, in this case, a metal deflector plate.7 Groeger, 266 U.S. at 531, 45 S.Ct. 169. Contrary to GM's contention, this will not result in inconsistent railroad operating standards among states. The applicable s......
  • Adams-Mitchell Co. v. Cambridge Distributing Co., No. 96
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • May 31, 1951
    ...Detroit Edison Co. v. S. E. C., 6 Cir., 119 F.2d 730, 739; Shilkret v. Musicraft Records, 2 Cir., 131 F.2d 929, 931. 23 U. S. v. Morrow, 266 U.S. 531, 535, 45 S.Ct. 173, 174, 69 L.Ed. 425: "And although sometimes used to introduce independent legislation, the presumption is that, in accorda......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
42 cases
  • City & Cnty. of S.F. v. Sessions, Case No. 17-cv-04642-WHO
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • October 5, 2018
    ...[of a proviso] is confined to the subject-matter of the principal clause.’ " Id. (quoting 349 F.Supp.3d 955 United States v. Morrow , 266 U.S. 531, 534–535, 45 S.Ct. 173, 69 L.Ed. 425 (1925) ); see also Alabama Dep't of Revenue v. CSX Transp., Inc. , ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 1136, 1144–45, ......
  • Abbott v. United States, Nos. 09–479
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • November 15, 2010
    ...562 U.S. 26we have held, "is confined to the subject-matter of the principal clause" to which it is attached. United States v. Morrow, 266 U.S. 531, 534–535, 45 S.Ct. 173, 69 L.Ed. 425 (1925). As a proviso attached to § 924(c), the "except" clause is most naturally read to refer to the cond......
  • Engvall v. Soo Line Railroad Co., No. C6-99-64.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • August 2, 2001
    ...consider the "presence or absence" of a particular device, such as a fusible plug or, in this case, a metal deflector plate.7 Groeger, 266 U.S. at 531, 45 S.Ct. 169. Contrary to GM's contention, this will not result in inconsistent railroad operating standards among states. The applicable s......
  • Adams-Mitchell Co. v. Cambridge Distributing Co., No. 96
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • May 31, 1951
    ...Detroit Edison Co. v. S. E. C., 6 Cir., 119 F.2d 730, 739; Shilkret v. Musicraft Records, 2 Cir., 131 F.2d 929, 931. 23 U. S. v. Morrow, 266 U.S. 531, 535, 45 S.Ct. 173, 174, 69 L.Ed. 425: "And although sometimes used to introduce independent legislation, the presumption is that, in accorda......
  • 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