UNITED STATES
v.
BISHOP
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A naval officer who served as executive officer of a training ship stationed in New York harbor and capable of independent cruising sought additional compensation designated for service "at sea" under federal statute. The Supreme Court affirmed that his duties qualified as service "at sea" within the meaning of the relevant statute, entitling him to sea-pay for the period of his service.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court.
This case does not differ in principle from that of United States v. Symonds, just decided.
Bishop is now, and has been for more than four years, a lieutenant-commander .in the navy. By direction of the Secretary of the Navy, he assumed the duties of executive officer of the training-ship Minnesota, on the 18th of April, 1884. During the period of such service that vessel was stationed in New York harbor, cruising and moving about under her own power. Her machinery and equipment were kept in order, and she was-perfectly seaworthy, capable, upon short notice, of being used in a protracted cruise.
The duties of Bishop, while such executive officer, were more arduous and confining than those of officers of similar grade upon vessels in foreign waters. For the reasons given in United States v. Symonds, we, are of opinion that the services of' appellee were, within the meaning of § 1556 of the Revised Statutes, performed “at sea,” and, consequently, it was rightly adjudged in the court below that he was entitled to sea-pay, as established for officers of his grade, during the period of his service on the Minnesota.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baltzell v. Mitchell, 3 F.2d 428 (1st Cir. 1925)…been determined and; adjusted by. such regulation, it is not -to be. disregarded without. the most .cogent and persuasive reasons. United States v. Hill, 120 U. S. 169, 182, 7 S. Ct. 510, 30 L. Ed. 627; United States v. Philbrick, 120 U. S. 52, 59, 7 S. Ct. 413, 30 L. Ed. 559; Brown v. United States, 113 U. S. 568, 571, 5 S. Ct. 648, 28 L. Ed. 1079; Robertson v. Downing, 127 U. S. 607, 613, 8 S. Ct. 1328, 32 L. Ed. 269. See .also First National Bank of Anamoose v. United States, 206 F. 374, 124 C. C. A. 25…
-
United States v. Lennox Metal Mfg. Co., Inc., 225 F.2d 302 (2d Cir. 1955)…s v. Sweet, 189 U.S. 471, 473, 23 S.Ct. 638, 47 L.Ed. 907; United States v. Johnston, 124 U.S. 236, 253, 8 S.Ct. 446, 31 L.Ed. 389; Hahn v. United States, 107 U.S. 402, 405-406, 2 S.Ct. 494, 27 L.Ed. 527; United States v. Philbrick, 120 U.S. 52, 59, 7 S.Ct. 413, 30 L.Ed. 559 ; Copper Queen Consol. Mining Co. v. Arizona Board, 208 U.S. 474, 479, 27 S.Ct. 695, 51 L.Ed. 1143; Logan v. Davis, 233 U.S. 613, 627, 34 S.Ct. 685, 58 L.Ed. 1121; cf. United States ex rel. Hirschberg v. Cooke, 336 U.S. 210, 216, 69 S.…
-
United States ex rel. Knauff v. McGrath, 181 F.2d 839 (2d Cir. 1950)…46 L.Ed. 890; U. S. v. Sweet, 189 U.S. 471, 473, 23 S. Ct. 638, 47 L.Ed. 907; U. S. v. Johnston, 124 U.S. 236, 237, 253, 8 S.Ct. 446, 31 L.Ed. 389; Hahn v. U. S. 107 U.S. 402, 405-406, 2 S.Ct. 494, 27 L.Ed. 527; U. S. v. Philbruck, 120 U.S. 52, 59, 7 S.Ct. 413, 30 L.Ed. 559; Copper Queen Mining Co. v. Arizona Board, 206 U.S. 474, 479, 27 S.Ct. 695, 51 L.Ed. 1143; Logan v. Davis, 233 U.S. 613, 627, 34 S.Ct. 685, 58 L.Ed. 1121; cf. U. S. ex rel. Hirschberg v. Cooke, 336 U.S. 210, 216, 69 S.Ct. 530; Hiatt v.…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence