Case ID: us-ct-cl_17/html/0431-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Chief Justice", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(16 C. Cls. R., 202; 104 U. S. R., 767.)
    The United States, appellants, v. Lawrence S. Babbitt, appellee.
    
      On the defendant’s Appeal.
    
    
      The claimant enters the Army after the usual service of a cadet at West Point. In computing his longevity pay, the accounting officers reckon from the date of his commission as second lieutenant and not from the time of his entry at West Point. He seeks to recover the difference.
    
    The court "below decides thatthe Act 18th June, 1878 (1 Supplmt. R. S., 362, § 7, eli. 263), in regard to longevity pay, cannot be construed to include service as a cadet at West Point. But judgment proforma by consent • .for the claimant.
    The defendants appeal.
    The Reporters’ statement of the case:
    As this case involved too small an amount to permit of an appeal, but was one of a class, the court below, upon the consent of the defendants, allowed, a pro forma judgment tobe entered for the claimant, for the purpose of an appeal.
    The position taken by the decision of the court below is strongly approved; but at the same time the Supreme Court held, on the authority of Pacific Railroad v. Keichum (101 U. S. R., 289), that the consent to the judgment below was in law a waiver of the error now complained of, and the judgment below is therefore affirmed.
   The Chief Justice

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, March 6, 1882.