United States v. Tyler
| Decision Date | 01 October 1881 |
| Citation | 105 U.S. 244,26 L.Ed. 985 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. TYLER |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Court of Claims.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
The Solicitor-General for the United States.
Mr. Richard W. Tyler and Mr. Robert B. Warden for the appellee.
The question in this case is, whether the appellee, who, on the fifteenth day of December, 1870, was retired from the army of the United States with the rank of captain, on account of wounds received in battle, is entitled to the benefit of the statute which increases the pay of officers by ten per cent for every period of five years' service.
The law for this increased compensation is thus expressed in the Revised Statutes:——
'. service.
'.
These sections are taken from the act of July 15, 1870, c. 294, and constituted the law on that subject when the appellee was retired, and their proper construction is the measure of his rights in this controversy. Sect. 1276 of the Revised Statutes was sect. 24 of the same statute, and is in the following language: 'Officers retired from active service shall receive seventy-five per centum of the pay of the rank upon which they are retired.'
Section 1275 provides that 'officers wholly retired from the service shall be entitled to receive upon their retirement one year's pay and allowances of the highest rank held by them, whether by staff or regimental commission, at the time of their retirement.'
There is, therefore, a manifest difference in the two kinds of retirement, namely, retiring from active service and retiring wholly and altogether from the service.
In the latter case such reward or compensation as Congress thought proper to bestow, namely, one year's pay and allowance, in addition to what was previously allowed, is given at once, and the connection is ended. In the former case the compensation is continued at a reduced rate, and the connection is continued, with a retirement from active service only.
The question is, therefore, whether an officer thus situated is in the service within the meaning of sect. 1262. That section allows an increase of pay for every five years' service. When the service ends, there can be no increase on that account. As long as the service continues, the increased pay applies whenever it amounts to five years.
The law under which these officers are retired does not require their consent, nor does it require that the order for their retirement shall be based upon any absolute incapacity for further service. It may be based upon age, which, being fixed at a minimum of sixty-two years, by no means implies such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Larrabee v. Del Toro
...full service, they are [still] part of the army, and may be assigned to such duty as the laws and regulations permit." 105 U.S. 244, 245, 26 L.Ed. 985 (1881) ; cf. Thornley v. United States , 113 U.S. 310, 315, 5 S.Ct. 491, 28 L.Ed. 999 (1885) ("The point on which [ Tyler ] turned was ... t......
-
Barker v. State
...active service by military retirees or by their employer, the Federal Government, is consistent with the [United States v.] Tyler, [105 U.S. (15 Otto) 244, 26 L.Ed. 985 (1881),] and McCarty [v. McCarty, 453 U.S. 210, 101 S.Ct. 2728, 69 L.Ed.2d 589 (1981),] decisions which state military ret......
-
Cornetta v. U.S.
... ... 100 A.L.R.Fed. 795 ... Ronald J. CORNETTA, Plaintiff-Appellant, ... The UNITED STATES of America and John Lehman, Secretary of ... the Navy, Defendants-Appellees ... No ... Even lengthy delay does not eliminate the prejudice prong of the laches test. See, e.g., Tyler v. United States, 600 F.2d 786, 789, 200 Ct.Cl. 387 (1979) ... There are two ... ...
-
Carty v. Carty
...respects from a typical pension or retirement plan. The retired officer remains a member of the Army, see United States v. Tyler, 105 U.S. 244, 26 L.Ed. 985 (1882),13 and continues to be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, see 10 U.S.C. § 802(4). See also Hooper v. United State......
-
Degrees of Losing: a Challenge to the Federal "frozen Benefit Rule"
...2019, 9:33 AM), https://www.insider.com/divorce-rate-changes-over-time-2019-1 [https://perma.cc/KSM7-4H5G].31. See United States v. Tyler, 105 U.S. 244, 245 (1881) (holding that military retired pay was, at that time, compensation for present employment because retired soldiers are "by stat......
-
The Crisis of June 2020: the Case of the Retired Generals and Admirals and the Clarion Calls of Their Critics in Lex Non Scripta (historic) Perspective
...[109] Section 6 reads, "Members of the Fleet Reserve and the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve." Id. § 802(a)(6). [110] United States v. Tyler, 105 U.S. 244, 246 (1881); Costello v. United States, 587 F.2d 424 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 929 (1979); Abbott v. United States, 200 Ct. Cl.......
-
OPTIMIZING MILITARY INSTALLATION JURISDICTION.
...U.S.C. [section] 1552 (2020). [27] UCMJ art. 2(a) (codified at 10 U.S.C. [section] 802(a) (2020)). [28] See, e.g., United States v. Tyler, 105 U.S. 244 (1882) (establishing the connection between military pay and subjection to military judicial authority); see also United States v. Dinger, ......
-
Chipping: could a high tech dog tag find future American MIAs?
...has re-enlisted in the service? The answer should be obvious--and is to us. Gallagher, 22 C.M.R. at 297. (93.) United States v. Tyler, 105 U.S. 244, 245 (1881). Cf. Hooper v. United States, 326 F.2d 982 (1964) (providing retired officer can be dismissed from service by court-martial for off......