Case Name: ROBERT W. ALLEN v. THE UNITED STATES
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1887-11-07
Citations: 23 Ct. Cl. 487
Docket Number: 
Parties: ROBERT W. ALLEN v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Volume: 23
Pages: 487–487

Head Matter:
ROBERT W. ALLEN v. THE UNITED STATES.
(22 C. Cls. R., 300; 123 U. S. R., 345.)
On the defendants’ Appeal.
General Order No. 75, Navy Department, allows to officers “ not provided with quarters on shore stations” “ a sum equal to 33 iper oentum of their pay in lieu of all allowances“ crncl those prometed with such quarters, 20 per oentum of their pay in lien of allowances for fwrniture or for lights and fuel.” The Supreme Court, in Philbrich’s Case (120 U. S. R., 52), affirms a judgment for this percentage. The judgment af-frmed extends the percentage to the longevity pay to which the officer was legally entitled. The defendants now contend that the general order should he restricted to a percentage of the pay actually paid to officers at the time the order was issued, and that the Supreme Court did not pass upon the question.
The court below decides:
(1) The General Order No. 75 of the Navy Department, 1866, -which allows to officers “not provided %oith quarters on shore stations” “a sum equal to 33J per centum of their pay,” means the pay to which each officer was legally entitled, including longevity pay.
(2) Though the opinion of an appellate court may say that a designated item “is the only one disputed on this appeal,” yet, if it appears that another item clearly and separately set forth in the findings of the court below was lite wise affirmed, it must be held that it was considered and passed upon by the court above, and the point involved be taken as star e decisis
Tbe judgment of the court below is reversed on the ground that the percentage allowed under General Order No. 75 is to be calculated on the amount statedly received by the officer as statutory pay at the time the order was in force, and is not to be increased by the additional compensation allowed by the Act March 3, 1883 (22 Stat. L., 473).

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, November 7, 1887.