NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT.
See Contracts V, VI.
NET ESTATE.
See Taxes LX, LXI.
NOTICE TO PROCEED.
See Contracts XIX, XX, XXI.
OVERTIME PAY.
I. It is held that the plaintiffs, customs inspectors at the port of Detroit from September 1, 1931, to August 31, 1937, are entitled to extra compensation as fixed by Section 5 of the Act of 1911, as amended by the Act of 1920, for services performed between the hours of five o'clock postmeridian and eight o'clock antemerid- ian, or on Sundays or holidays, and the Government. is liable for such extra compensation. Myers et al., 447. II. Where the statute plainly states that the services ren- dered after five o'clock in the afternoon and before eight o'clock in the morning or on Sundays and holi- days shall be "overtime," no other meaning can be given to the term "overtime." Id.
III. Where the statute provides that extra compensation due to customs employees for overtime work at night or on Sundays or holidays shall be paid to the collector of customs by the owner, master, or consignee of such vessel to which a special license or permit is granted for lading or unlading at night or on Sundays or holi- days; it is held that such provision does not relieve the Government from liability for extra pay for serv- ices during the periods fixed under the statute. Id. IV. Where the statute gives to the collector of customs authority to adjust the working day of customs em- ployees to correspond with the customary daylight working periods at certain ports, it is held that such provision granting such authority does not affect or alter the length of the working day for customs em- ployees or the overtime pay fixed by the statute. Id.
ORAL CLAIM NOT ALLOWABLE.
See Taxes XX.
OVERPAYMENT.
See Taxes LIV.
OVERTIME WORK, PENALTIES.
See Contracts VII, VIII.
PAROL EVIDENCE.
See Contracts XXVII, XXVIII. PARTNERSHIP PROFITS.
I. Where plaintiff's petition alleges infringement of Patent No. 1,559,311 granted to plaintiff September 6, 1926, for a marine vessel, upon an application originally filed June 14, 1923, because of the application to certain warships of the United States of a structure extraneous to the original hulls of the ships and placed thereon primarily for protection against torpedoes, it is held that the evidence submitted establishes that the government structures complained of do not corres- pond to the claims of the patent in suit and therefore there is no infringement. Mar-De-Passy Corporation, 316.
II. The defendant made no use of such a combination of features as is described in the specifications of plain- tiff's patent. Id.
III. There is nothing new in the plaintiff's patent unless it be in the features that were not used by the defend- ant; the evidence definitely shows that the defendant made no use of the combination claimed by plaintiff and that all the defendant did use in modernizing its ships was old in the art of shipbuilding. Id.
I. Upon the proofs adduced it is held that plaintiff, a first lieutenant in the Coast Artillery Corps, U. S. A., is not entitled to recover rental allowance for an officer of his rank, with or without dependants, from July 1, 1935, to June 12, 1936, and that plaintiff is entitled to recover rental and subsistence allowances, on account of dependent mother, for the periods from August 1, 1936, to March 1, 1937; June 1 to August 1, 1937, and November 1, 1938, to May 1, 1939. Thorlin, 61., II. Where the plaintiff, an unmarried commissioned officer in the United States Navy, lieutenant, junior grade, maintained a household in which his mother acted as housekeeper, and was not otherwise employed, it is held that the evidence shows that the cost to plaintiff of her necessary support exceeded the amount of her independent income from property, and the plaintiff was therefore her chief support, and was entitled to rental and subsistence allowances on account of a dependent mother for the period in question. Simons, 132.
III. Where the mother of an officer has a small amount of property the income of which is not sufficient to support her, the law does not require that she should make herself penniless by using up this fund before her son can make a claim on account of her dependency.
PAY AND ALLOWANCES-Continued.
IV. Where plaintiff, a lieutenant, junior grade, United States Navy, on duty with aircraft squadrons at Coco Solo, Canal Zone, and having a dependent wife and child, was not assigned regular quarters at his base, no quarters there being available, and where plaintiff with the consent of the commanding officer at France Field, an Army flying field, obtained and occupied quarters at said France Field, which quarters had been abandoned by the Army as living quarters for its personnel; it is held that since plaintiff and his dependents, during the period of his claim, resided in Government quarters, there can be no recovery for rental allowance. Byrne v. United States, 87 C. Cls. 241, cited. Hollister, 137.
V. Where plaintiff occupied Government quarters not in the best of condition and made necessary repairs at his own expense, it is held that he is entitled to recover reasonable expenses which in his judgment it was essential to expend on the quarters furnished. Id. VI. Commutation of quarters is reimbursement to an officer for expenses paid by him for private quarters when the Government fails to furnish public quarters and is no part of the pay of an officer. Odell v. United States, 38 C. Cls. 194, cited. Id.
VII. Quarters furnished by the Government need not be elaborate. Id.
VIII. Where plaintiff, a retired officer of the United States Navy, receiving retired pay of his rank, $2,160 per year, was employed as chief laundryman at the United States Naval Academy, drawing a salary of $2,000 per year, which salary was paid from the Naval Academy Laundry Fund, said Fund being made up from amounts received from officers, instructors, and mid- shipmen, and not from appropriated moneys, and where the said Naval Academy Laundry had been built, equipped, and maintained by the United States Gov- ernment, and was a facility owned and operated by the Government, it is held that the plaintiff, although not paid from appropriated funds, was paid from a fund belonging to the United States Government, derived from money collected for services rendered by the said facility of the Government, and plaintiff ac- cordingly was a "person holding a civilian office or position * * under the United States Govern- ment" within the meaning of the Economy Act of June 30, 1932. Sullivan, 154.
PAY AND ALLOWANCES-Continued. IX. Following the decision in Dickerson v. United States, 310 U. S. 554, it is held that the Act of July 2, 1926, sec- tions 2 and 6, providing extra pay for officers and enlisted men of the Army and Navy, making aerial flights, was, so far as it applies to Navy officers above the rank of captain, suspended by the Act of April 26, 1938. Blakely, 204.
X. Where plaintiff, a lieutenant colonel in the United States Army on active duty, from July 1, 1937, to June 30, 1938, during the first four months of said fiscal year, did not occupy Government quarters and therefore was entitled to pay and allowances, including com- mutation of quarters, for an officer of his rank, with dependents, and where the plaintiff during the last eight months of said fiscal year occupied Government quarters and therefore was not entitled to commu- tation of quarters; and where during the first-named period of four months the Finance Officer of the Army withheld from the plaintiff all pay in excess of $600 a month, interpreting Section 7 of the Act of June 10, 1922, placing a limitation of $7,200 a year on the pay and allowances of any officer below the grade of brigadier general, to mean a daily limitation of $20 or a monthly limitation of $600, it is held that under the provisions of the said Section 7 an officer of stated rank is given the right to receive the full amount of base pay, pay for length of service and allowances for subsistence and rental of quarters so long as the total of all these items, for the year, does not exceed the maximum fixed in the statute. Koenig, 310.
XI. A daily or monthly computation of pay and allowances is not mentioned in the statute. Id.
XII. All salaries of the Government are based on the fiscal year and Congress appropriates for salaries on the fiscal- year basis. Id.
XIII. Where plaintiff, an enlisted man in the United States Marine Corps, having completed more than 20 years of active service and having attained the rank of pay- master sergeant, made application on December 21, 1928, to be transferred as of December 31, 1928, to Class II (d) Fleet Marine Corps Reserve with the rank of paymaster sergeant, and where on January 7, 1929, plaintiff not having been so transferred was demoted to the grade of staff sergeant, and where on January 22, 1929, plaintiff was transferred with rank of staff sergeant, and on September 30, 1937, was re-
PAY AND ALLOWANCES-Continued.
tired with such rank of staff sergeant, it is held that plaintiff is not entitled to recover the difference be- tween the pay authorized for paymaster sergeant and staff sergeant so transferred and retired. Blackett v. United States, 81 C. Cls. 884, and Standerson v. United States, 83 C. Cls. 633, distinguished. Wright, 459.
"PER MONTH."
See Contracts XXVI.
PRIOR CASE.
See Taxes XXVIII.
PROTEST NOT A CLAIM.
See Taxes XIX.
REFUND.
See Taxes XXXVI, XXXVII, XXXVIII, XXXIX. RES JUDICATA.
See Taxes IX, X, XI, XXIX. REVERSAL OF CREDITS.
RIGHT OF RECEIVER TO BRING SUIT.
See Cotton Linters I.
RIPARIAN RIGHTS.
See Indian Claims XI, XII.
SALVAGE COST.
See Steamboat IV.
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
See Taxes XIV, XVIII.
STEAMBOAT.
I. It is held that under the special jurisdictional act, on the evidence adduced, plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for injury to the steamboat Senator Cordill and its cargo as a result of the boat's striking a sub- merged wicket of the United States Dam No. 14 on the Ohio River, February 5, 1934. Hubbard, 381. II. A ship owner may sue in his own name for the benefit of the owners of the cargo to recover damages thereto as a result of the negligence of another. The Beacons-
field, 158 U. S. 303, 305, cited. Id.
III. Where it is necessary for a boat to be raised and examined
before the extent of the injuries may be determined, the cost of raising her may be recovered, in a suit for damages on account of the negligence of another. Reno, 134 Fed. 555, and other cases cited. Id. IV. Where plaintiff is entitled to the cost of salvaging the cargo and the boat, in a suit for damages on account of the negligence of another, the sale price of the boat must be deducted from the gross amount of salvage cost. The Shady Side, 21 Fed. Cas., 1137, cited. Id.
« PreviousContinue » |