UNITED STATES
v.
KELLY

U.S. | 1872-12-01
15 Wall. 34 Supreme Court of the United States (1872) Caution
Also reported at: 21 L. Ed. 106 · 1872 U.S. LEXIS 1226 · SCDB 1872-057
Cited by 19 cases
Opinion of the Court
The CHIEF JUSTICE

The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.

"We do not think that, under the circumstances of the present case, the bounty was forfeited. The able lawyer who fills at present the post of Judge Advocate General, in a case similar to the present, held that “the honorable discharge of the deserter wras a formal final judgment passed by the government upon the entire military record of the soldier, and an authoritative declaration by it that he had left the service in a status of honor; that as such, it dispensed altogether with the supposed necessity that the soldier must obtain bountj-by removal, by order, of the charge of desertion from the rolls, and amoünted of itself to the removal of any charge or impediment in the way of his receiving bounty.” With this opinion we entirely concur.'

Judgment affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • United States ex rel. Hirshberg v. Cooke, 336 U.S. 210 (U.S. 1949)
    …d on the implicit assumption that discharged servicemen, whether reenlisted or not, were no longer subject to court-martial power. The Attorney General of the United States had proceeded on the same assumption. And see United [*219] States v. Kelly, 15 Wall. 34, 36. Under these circumstances, little weight can be given to the 1932 separate effort of the Navy to change the long-accepted understanding of its statutory court-martial power. For should this belated naval interpretation be accepted as correct, t…
  • United States v. Landers, 92 U.S. 77 (U.S. 1875)
    …laims held that he was entitled both to pay and bounty, and gave judgment for the whole amount claimed; being of opinion that his offence of desertion was purged by his honorable discharge within the decision of this court in United States v. Kelly, 15 Wall. 34, and that his case was not covered by the joint resolution of Congress of March 1, 1870. 16 Stat. 370. . We have looked into the record in Kelly’s case, and we find it entirely different -from this case. Kelly had served from February, 1864, until…
  • Hironimus v. Durant, 168 F.2d 288 (4th Cir. 1948)

Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw