Case: MARY R. PALMER, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES C. PALMER, DECEASED v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Palmer v. United States
Decision Date: 1960-01-20
Docket Number: No. 356-58
Citation: 148 Ct. Cl. 470
Volume: 148
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: MARY R. PALMER, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES C. PALMER, DECEASED v. THE UNITED STATES
Judges: 
Pages: 470–474

Head Matter:
MARY R. PALMER, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES C. PALMER, DECEASED v. THE UNITED STATES
[No. 356-58.
Decided January 20, 1960.
Plaintiff’s motion for rehearing overruled May 4, 1960.
Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider and for relief from judgment of dismissal granted July 12, 1961]
Mr. Cornelius H. Doherty for the plaintiff. Mr. Wilmer S. /Schants, Jr., was on the briefs.
Mr. Paris T. Houston, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General George Ooohran Doub, for the defendant. Mr. Leroy Southmayd, Jr., was on the brief.
By order of the court on July 12, 1961,, plaintiffs motion to reconsider was granted and the order of January 20, I960, dismissing the petition was vacated and withdrawn and plaintiff’s and defendant’s motions for summary judgment were denied without prejudice.

Opinion:
Per Curiam ;
This is a suit by plaintiff as the adminis-tratrix of her husband's estate claiming military retired pay which was due her husband for certain years but which has been withheld by the defendant pursuant to section 212 of the Economy Act of 1932, 47 Stat. 406, as amended, 5 U.S.O. 59a(a). Plaintiff's husband had been on July 12, 1946 relieved from active duty and retired for physical disability pursuant to section 5 of the Act of April 3,1939, as amended, 53 Stat. 557, 10 U.S.O. (1952 ed.) 456.
Plaintiff's husband had no status in the reserve components of the Armed Forces and did not receive his retirement pay from laws relating thereto. His position therefore does not place him within the exemption to the Economy Act as permitted under Tanner v. United States, 129 C. Cls. 792, cert. denied 350 U.S. 842, and like cases.
We hold on the basis of our decision in Leonard v. United States, 136 C. Cls. 686, cert. denied 353 U.S. 976, that plaintiff is not entitled to recover.
Defendant's motion for summary judgment will be granted and plaintiff's like motion denied. Plaintiff's petition will be dismissed.
It is so ordered.