Case: E. D. KALBFLEISH v. THE UNITED STATES; MORTIMER S. CRAWFORD v. THE UNITED STATES; EARL W. CRIGER v. THE UNITED STATES; BAYARD L. BELL v. THE UNITED STATES; ROBERT J. MUNFORD v. THE UNITED STATES; H. V. SHURTLEFF v. THE UNITED STATES; LUCIAN C. WHITAKER v. THE UNITED STATES; LEE N. UTZ v. THE UNITED STATES; ALBERT L. GARDNER v. THE UNITED STATES; WILLIAM G. MANLEY v. THE UNITED STATES; JACOB ROELLER v. THE UNITED STATES; JAMES T. MOORE v. THE UNITED STATES; JOHN D. MUNCIE v. THE UNITED STATES; J. C. WEMPLE v. THE UNITED STATES; W. B. JAMES v. THE UNITED STATES; E. G. KIRKPATRICK v. THE UNITED STATES; LOFTON C. HENDERSON v. THE UNITED STATES; EDMUND M. McCALLAWAY v. THE UNITED STATES; JOHN H. COFFMAN v. THE UNITED STATES; F. M. WULBERN v. THE UNITED STATES; FRANK P. PYZICK v. THE UNITED STATES; GREGON A. WILLIAMS v. THE UNITED STATES; GORDON HALL v. THE UNITED STATES; RICHARD N. JOHNSON v. THE UNITED STATES; CLAYTON C. JEROME v. THE UNITED STATES; LYMAN G. MILLER v. THE UNITED STATES; CLAUDE A. LARKIN v. THE UNITED STATES; MERRILL B. TWINING v. THE UNITED STATES; W. G. GRIFFITH, ADMR. v. THE UNITED STATES; W. E. McCAUGHTRY v. THE UNITED STATES; C. B. GRAHAM v. THE UNITED STATES; JOHN H. STILLMAN v. THE UNITED STATES; J. H. FITZGERALD v. THE UNITED STATES; FRANCIS J. KELLY, JR., v. THE UNITED STATES; PRENTICE S. GEER v. THE UNITED STATES; WILLIAM J. WALLACE v. THE UNITED STATES; E. T. PETERS v. THE UNITED STATES; J. N. SMITH v. THE UNITED STATES; THEODORE A. HOLDAHL v. THE UNITED STATES; DONALD M. HAMILTON v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Kalbfleish v. United States
Decision Date: 1937-04-05
Docket Number: M-266; M-246; M-284; M-241; M-271; M-299; M-307; M-304; M-248; M-288; M-297; M-292; M-293; M-306; M-287; M-268; M-262; 41871; M-245; M-308; M-296; 42789; M-260; M-263; 41869; M-291; 41870; M-303; M-252; M-270; M-250; M-301; M-247; M-267; M-285; M-305; M-295; 42804; M-253; M-261
Citation: 84 Ct. Cl. 618
Volume: 84
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: E. D. KALBFLEISH v. THE UNITED STATES MORTIMER S. CRAWFORD v. THE UNITED STATES EARL W. CRIGER v. THE UNITED STATES BAYARD L. BELL v. THE UNITED STATES ROBERT J. MUNFORD v. THE UNITED STATES H. V. SHURTLEFF v. THE UNITED STATES LUCIAN C. WHITAKER v. THE UNITED STATES LEE N. UTZ v. THE UNITED STATES ALBERT L. GARDNER v. THE UNITED STATES WILLIAM G. MANLEY v. THE UNITED STATES JACOB ROELLER v. THE UNITED STATES JAMES T. MOORE v. THE UNITED STATES JOHN D. MUNCIE v. THE UNITED STATES J. C. WEMPLE v. THE UNITED STATES W. B. JAMES v. THE UNITED STATES E. G. KIRKPATRICK v. THE UNITED STATES LOFTON C. HENDERSON v. THE UNITED STATES EDMUND M. McCALLAWAY v. THE UNITED STATES JOHN H. COFFMAN v. THE UNITED STATES F. M. WULBERN v. THE UNITED STATES FRANK P. PYZICK v. THE UNITED STATES GREGON A. WILLIAMS v. THE UNITED STATES GORDON HALL v. THE UNITED STATES RICHARD N. JOHNSON v. THE UNITED STATES CLAYTON C. JEROME v. THE UNITED STATES LYMAN G. MILLER v. THE UNITED STATES CLAUDE A. LARKIN v. THE UNITED STATES MERRILL B. TWINING v. THE UNITED STATES W. G. GRIFFITH, ADMR. v. THE UNITED STATES W. E. McCAUGHTRY v. THE UNITED STATES C. B. GRAHAM v. THE UNITED STATES JOHN H. STILLMAN v. THE UNITED STATES J. H. FITZGERALD v. THE UNITED STATES FRANCIS J. KELLY, JR., v. THE UNITED STATES PRENTICE S. GEER v. THE UNITED STATES WILLIAM J. WALLACE v. THE UNITED STATES E. T. PETERS v. THE UNITED STATES J. N. SMITH v. THE UNITED STATES THEODORE A. HOLDAHL v. THE UNITED STATES DONALD M. HAMILTON v. THE UNITED STATES
Judges: 
Pages: 618–625

Head Matter:
M-266
M-246
M-284
M-241
M-271
M-299
M-307
M-304
M-248
E. D. KALBFLEISH v. THE UNITED STATES MORTIMER S. CRAWFORD v. THE UNITED STATES EARL W. CRIGER v. THE UNITED STATES BAYARD L. BELL v. THE UNITED STATES ROBERT J. MUNFORD v. THE UNITED STATES H. V. SHURTLEFF v. THE UNITED STATES LUCIAN C. WHITAKER v. THE UNITED STATES LEE N. UTZ v. THE UNITED STATES ALBERT L. GARDNER v. THE UNITED STATES WILLIAM G. MANLEY v. THE UNITED STATES JACOB ROELLER v. THE UNITED STATES JAMES T. MOORE v. THE UNITED STATES JOHN D. MUNCIE v. THE UNITED STATES J. C. WEMPLE v. THE UNITED STATES W. B. JAMES v. THE UNITED STATES E. G. KIRKPATRICK v. THE UNITED STATES LOFTON C. HENDERSON v. THE UNITED STATES EDMUND M. McCALLAWAY v. THE UNITED STATES JOHN H. COFFMAN v. THE UNITED STATES F. M. WULBERN v. THE UNITED STATES FRANK P. PYZICK v. THE UNITED STATES GREGON A. WILLIAMS v. THE UNITED STATES GORDON HALL v. THE UNITED STATES RICHARD N. JOHNSON v. THE UNITED STATES CLAYTON C. JEROME v. THE UNITED STATES LYMAN G. MILLER v. THE UNITED STATES CLAUDE A. LARKIN v. THE UNITED STATES MERRILL B. TWINING v. THE UNITED STATES W. G. GRIFFITH, ADMR. v. THE UNITED STATES W. E. McCAUGHTRY v. THE UNITED STATES C. B. GRAHAM v. THE UNITED STATES JOHN H. STILLMAN v. THE UNITED STATES J. H. FITZGERALD v. THE UNITED STATES FRANCIS J. KELLY, JR., v. THE UNITED STATES PRENTICE S. GEER v. THE UNITED STATES WILLIAM J. WALLACE v. THE UNITED STATES E. T. PETERS v. THE UNITED STATES J. N. SMITH v. THE UNITED STATES THEODORE A. HOLDAHL v. THE UNITED STATES DONALD M. HAMILTON v. THE UNITED STATES
M-288
M-297
M-292
M-293
M-306
M-287
M-268
M-262
41871
M-245
M-308
M-296
42789
M-260
M-263
41869
M-291
41870
M-303
M-252
M-270
M-250
M-301
M-247
M-267
M-285
M-305
M-295
42804
M-253
M-261
[Decided April 5, 1937]
Mr. Rees B. Gillespie for the plaintiffs. Mr. John W. Price was on the brief.
Mr. Louis R. Mehlinger, with whom was Mr. Acting Assistant Attorney General William W. ¡Scott, for the defendant.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
BY THE COURT
These several cases have been submitted to the court without oral argument with the understanding that they will follow and be controlled by the decision of the court in R. J. Bartholomew v. United States, No. M-239, which is this day announced, the facts in the Bartholomew case being identical with the facts in these cases. The decision in the Bartholomew case follows our decision in R. L. Montague v. United States, 79 C. Cls. 624, in which the legal question here involved is fully discussed. The defendant accepted the decision in the Montague case as a correct interpretation of the law and made no application to the Supreme Court for certiorari. The General Accounting Office, however, has not seen fit to settle the claims here presented on the basis of the Montague decision. The respective plaintiffs in these suits have therefore been compelled to prosecute their claims to a final judgment in this court, although the law has long been settled that they are entitled to the allowances claimed.