Case Name: Frank T. HINES, Director of the United State Veterans' Bureau, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, ex rel. Robert A. BAIRD, Appellee
Court: United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1930-06-02
Citations: 42 F.2d 351
Docket Number: No. 5146
Parties: Frank T. HINES, Director of the United State Veterans’ Bureau, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, ex rel. Robert A. BAIRD, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 42
Pages: 351–351

Head Matter:
Frank T. HINES, Director of the United State Veterans’ Bureau, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, ex rel. Robert A. BAIRD, Appellee.
No. 5146.
Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Argued May 5, 1930.
Decided June 2, 1930.
Leo A. Rover, John W. Fihelly, Annabel Hinderliter, and James T. Brady, all of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
S. T. Ansell, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.

Opinion:
MARTIN, Chief Justice.
Appeal from a judgment in mandamus commanding appellant, as Director of the United States Veterans' Bureau, to place relator upon the retired list created by the Emergency Officers' Retirement Act of May 24, 1928 (45 Stat. 735 [38 USCA § 581, 582]), with retired pay as provided by that act.
The issue below was made by the relator's petition, respondent's answer to the rule to show cause, and relator's demurrer to the return. The court sustained the demurrer, and the respondent elected to stand upon his return, whereupon judgment was entered against him, and this appeal was taken.
It is agreed by the parties that the issue involved in this ease is essentially similar to that involved in Frank T. Hines, Director of the United States Veterans' Bureau, Appellant v. United States of America ex rel. Stanton K. Livingston, 59 App. D. C. 363, 42 F.(2d) 347, wherein a decision is announced concurrently herewith. Conformably with the court's opinion in that case the judgment of the lower court in the present case is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.