Court Opinion

ID: 9416972
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 19:59:25.674871+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:34.524088
License: Public Domain

MivJustice SWAYNE,
in whose opinion concurred the CHIEF JUSTICE, and Mr. Justice DAVIS, dissenting from the judgment in the first twelve cases:
I dissent from the judgment of the court in these cases in *189favor of, the claimants^ .and will give my views as briefly as may be. When the resolution, giving the twenty per cent, was passed, nearly eight months of the yehr to which the allowance related.had. elapsed. The allowance.was a mere gratuity. • Hence theve.was no vested right arising from the resolution, and there could be none. , But the resolution wa? operative in each case -until the' claimant was paid. When repealed, the gratuity which it gave fell with it.. The repeal necessarily had that.effect. I see no reason forgiving the repealing section a more limited construction.- It was. intended to take away from all those. wlio had not tbeidbeen paid, the right to' be paid thereafter. I think, therefore, that the judgmepts of the Court of Claiins should be reversed.