Case Name: ALBERT C. ENGARD v. THE UNITED STATES
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1905-02-20
Citations: 40 Ct. Cl. 518
Docket Number: 
Parties: ALBERT C. ENGARD v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Volume: 40
Pages: 518–519

Head Matter:
ALBERT C. ENGARD v. THE UNITED STATES.
[38 C. Cls. R., 712; 190 U. S. R., 511.]
On the defendants’ Appeal.
In February, 1897, the chief engineer of the Richmond, lying at League Island, is ordered by the Secretary of the Navy to Shelby, Ohio, “ for temporary duty in connection with the inspection of sleel tubes for boilers.” “ This duty is in addition to your present duties.” The officer goes there twice. The question is whether he should continue to receive sea pay while his duties on the Richmond continue, he being absent from the vessel on “ temporary duty.”
The court below decides:
1. The statute relating to sea pay (Rev. Stat., § 1571) has never been applied literally by either the Navy Department or the accounting officers or the courts. A life on shipboard involves greater sacrifices, discomforts, and expenses than a life on shore duty, and the plain purpose of Congress is that the’ Government shall pay more when the officer renders more.
2. Under the Navy Regulations “An officer temporarily absent from a ship in commission, to which, he is attached, shall continue to receive sea pay.” An officer attached to a vessel, but ordered ashore by the Secretary of the Navy “ for temporary duty,” and by the same order notified that “ this duty is in addition to your present duties,” i. e., duties on his vessel, comes within the regulation and is entitled to sea pay.
3. So long as an officer remains attached to a vessel with duties to discharge there and responsibilities to bear, he can not be deprived of his sea pay by imposing upon him temporary additional duty to be discharged on shore.

Opinion:
The decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.
Mr. Justice White delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court February 20,1905.