Case ID: us-ct-cl_58/html/0191-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BY THE COURT.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HENRY GUILMETTE v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [No. B-48.
    Decided March 19, 1923.]
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    
      Navy pay; travel pay. — Where plaintiff is nominated as paymaster’s clerk, and is authorized after passing the required physical examination at Norfolk, Va., and taking the oath of office, to proceed at his own expense to San Francisco, and thence to take passage on an Army transport to Manila at Government expense, he is entitled to recover mileage from Norfolk to San Francisco.
    
      
      The Reporter’s statement of the case:
    
      Mr. George A. King for the plaintiff. King da King were on the briefs.
    
      Mr. John G. Ewing, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Robert H. Lovett, for the defendant.
    The following are the facts of the case as found by the court:
    I. The plaintiff has been in the service of the United States in the United States Navy continuously since November 11, 1909. While so in the service there was issued to him under date of June 2, 1914, an order set forth in the reply of the Department of the Navy to the call of this court as follows:
    “ Having been nominated by Paymaster Henry A. Wise, jr., for appointment as paymaster’s clerk to the pay officer, naval station, Cavite, P. I., you are authorized to report to the commandant, Navy Yard, Norfolk, Va., for the physical examination required by Article 3318, Navy Begulations, 1913.
    “ If found qualified the examining officer will endorse such fact upon this order and you will execute the inclosed blank form of acceptance and oath of office.
    “ If found qualified as above provided you are authorized to proceed to San Francisco, Calif., at your own expense and take passage for Manila on the Army transport sailing on or about July 5,1914.
    
      “ Upon arrival at Manila report to the senior officer present, naval station, Cavite, P. I., and by letter to the commander in chief, Asiatic Fleet, and the commander in chief, Asiatic Fleet, and the commandant, naval station, Olongapo, P. I., for the above-mentioned duty.
    
      “ The War Department has been requested to furnish you transportation on the above-mentioned transport.
    “ In case you do not desire to accept this appointment under the condition set forth above, you are requested to notify the department to that effect and return this letter with all inclosures.
    
      “ Upon completion of your physical examination forward to the Bureau of Navigation a true copy of this order with all indorsements thereon, together with your acceptance, oath of office, and beneficiary slip.”
    In pursuance of said order, plaintiff reported at the navy yard, Norfolk, Va., for physical examination, and was found duly qualified. He traveled from Norfolk, Va., to San Francisco, Calif., at His own expense, and then sailed from San Francisco to Cavite, P. I., where he reported in obedience to the above order of August 5,1914.
    II. There would be due him for the journey from Norfolk, Va., to San Francisco, Calif., a distance of 3,223 miles, at the rate of 8 cents per mile, the sum of $251.84.
   MEMORANDUM

BY THE COURT.

This case is similar in all respects to the case of Katzer v. United States, 52 C. Cls. 32. The case of Parmelee v. United States, 56 C. Cls. 125, is different from the case here, in that Parmalee was informed that if he did not desire to travel at his own expense he should regard the orders as revoked and return them for cancellation.

This case is different from the case of Graham v. United States, 57 C. Cls. 515. Graham was a retired officer who applied for assignment to active duty. He was so assigned, but before his assignment he stated to the Navy Department that if assigned to active duty he would pay his own travel expenses. In the order assigning him to active duty it was stated “ You are authorized to proceed at your own expense, and this employment is subject to your consent.”

Upon the authority of the Katzer case the court is of opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the sum of $257.84; and it is so ordered.