Case ID: us-ct-cl_23/html/0490-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Miller", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DAVID MOUAT v. THE UNITED STATES.
    (22 C Cls. R., 293; 124 U. S. R., 303.)
    
      On the defendants’ Demurrer.
    
    The only question presented hy the case is whether a paymaster’s clerk in the Navy is an officer within the meaning of the act 30th June, 1876, which provides that “ officers of the Navy ” shall be allowed mileage.
    The court below decides :
    (1) The statutes recognize and provide for paymasters’ clerks in the Navy, hut are silent as to the manner of appointment. (Rev. Stat., 1386-1388.)
    
      (2) Paymasters’ clerks are officers if not within the meaning of the Constitution certainly within the intent of the Act 30th June, 1876 (1& Stat. L., 65), allowing mileage to officers traveling on public business.
    (3) It is generally understood that the words “ officers and enlisted men ” include the whole personnel of the Navy; those who sign the shipping articles being regarded as enlisted men, and those who take the oath of office prescribed by Revised Statutes, § 1757, as officers.
    The decision of the court below is reversed, on tile ground that the claimant was not an officer of the Navy within the meaning of the act of June 30, 1876.
   Mr. Justice Miller

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court January 23, 1888.