Case: WILLIAM G. MILLER v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Miller v. United States
Decision Date: 1908-01-06
Docket Number: 
Citation: 43 Ct. Cl. 587
Volume: 43
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: WILLIAM G. MILLER v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Pages: 587–587

Head Matter:
WILLIAM G. MILLER v. THE UNITED STATES.
[41 C. Cls. R., 400; 208 U. S. R., 33.]
On the defendants' Appeal.
In tlie Army an aid to a major-general is allowed by law “ $200 a year, in addition to pay of his ranlc ” (Rev. Slat., sec. 1261) ; and by tbe navy personnel act officers of tbe Navy are to receive tbe same pay as officers of tbe Army of correlative rank. Tbe question in tbe case is whether an officer of tbe Navy assigned to duty on tbe personal staff of tbe commander in chief as flag lieutenant is an aid and entitled to this additional pay, be not being designated as aid in tbe order of assignment.
Tbe court below decides:
I. A naval officer assigned to duty on tbe personal staff of tbe commander in chief on tbe Pacific Station as flag lieutenant, and by no other designation, is an aid and entitled to the additional pay of $200 given to tbe aid of a major-general in tbe Army by Revised Statutes, section 1261.
II. An aid to an admiral is entitled to have bis longevity pay calculated upon the additional pay which be receives as aid. Tbe Act 80th June, 1882 (22 Stat. L., p. 118), was designed .to cure a defect in the computation of longevity pay. To make this statute exclude from tbe computation tbe additional pay of an officer given by statute would bring about a result not intended by Congress.
The decision of the court below is affirmed as to the officer being entitled to the additional pay of $200 and is reversed as to the longevity pay.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Holmes
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court January 6, 1908.