Case: John T. Morrison, appellee, v. The United States, aplpelants
Abbreviation: Morrison v. United States
Decision Date: 1878-02-18
Docket Number: 
Citation: 13 Ct. Cl. 555
Volume: 13
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: John T. Morrison, appellee, v. The United States, aplpelants.
Judges: 
Pages: 555–555

Head Matter:
MORRISON’S CASE.
(Ante p. 1;
96 U. S. R., 232.)
John T. Morrison, appellee, v. The United States, aplpelants.
On the defendants’ Appeal.
In June, 1875, a first lieutenant of earalry is appointed, with the approval of the Secretary of War,'regimental quartermaster. Subsequently he is “assigned to duty as assistant commissary.” He discharges the duties of both, offices, quartermaster and commissary, but is paid only as regimental quartermaster. He claims the pay o/f¡100 a year, given by the Revised Statutes (§ 1261) to an acting assistant commissary, in addition to the pay of his rank. The defendants insist that the higher pay given to regimental quartermasters, ($1,800, instead o/$l,600 given to other first lieutenants) and the provision of the Army Regulations (No. 1345) prohibiting “pay for two staff appointments for the same time” constitute a defense.
Tlie court "below construes tlie statutes and Army Regulations applicable to tlie ease. (See ante, p. 1.) Judgment for tlie claimant. The defendants appeal.
The. judgment of the court "below is affirmed. The Supreme Court-now holds: (1) That a lieutenant in a cavalry regiment assigned to duty as regimental quartermaster and also performing the additional duty of regimental commissary is entitled to tlie additional compensation of $100 a year given hy Revised Statutes, § 1261; (2) That the Army regulation (§ 1345) which provides that “ no officer shall receive pay for two staff appointments at the same time” does not apply to a regimental quartermaster in the cavalry, whose pay as a staff officer is fixed by law.

Opinion:
Tlie Chief Justice
delivered tbe opinion of tbe Supreme Court, February 18, 1878.