Case: FRANCIS M. FURLONG v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Furlong v. United States
Decision Date: 1910-06-06
Docket Number: No. 28703
Citation: 45 Ct. Cl. 493
Volume: 45
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: FRANCIS M. FURLONG v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Pages: 493–497

Head Matter:
FRANCIS M. FURLONG v. THE UNITED STATES.
[No. 28703.
Decided June 6, 1910.]
On the Proofs.
An assistant surgeon in the Navy is assigned to duty on the TJ. S. S. Brutus and ordered to report to the naval governor of Guam, where the Brutus is stationed. By the governor he is verbally assigned to the shore duty of caring for the sanitary condition of the natives. He seeks to recover the 10 per cent increase of pay allowed to officers for shore duty beyond seas and commutation of quarters.
I. Where an officer in the Navy is assigned by proper authority to sea duty on a vessel he can not be considered as “ detailed for shore duty beyond seas ” within the intent of the Wavy Personnel Act (30 Stat., L., p. 1007, § 13) and the Act Sd March, 1901 (31 Stat. L., p. 1108), because the naval governor of Guam by a verbal order directed him to do duty in the town of Agaña in caring for the health and sanitary condition of the natives.
II. Duty performed on shore by a naval officer, without having been detailed for shore duty, must be regarded as temporary service performed while he officially remains on board the vessel to which he is attached.
III. The service of a naval officer on shore duty beyond seas is exceptional service; to entitle him to extra pay therefor he must show that he was detailed for such service.
The Reporters’ statement of tbe case:
The following are the facts of the case as found by the court:
I. The claimant, Francis M. Furlong, was during the period covered by this claim an assistant surgeon in the navy, appointed from civil life, serving in his first five years.
II. Prior to the 16th day of November, 1900, said assistant surgeon was attached to the U. S. S. Yosemite, then off the island of Guam, but on that date the Yosemite was wrecked and destroyed in a hurricane, and thereupon the claimant was, by orders of the rear-admiral, commander in chief of the Asiatic Station, detached from the Yosemite and ordered to report to the naval governor, island of Guam, for duty on board the U. S. S. Brutus. In accordance with these orders, the claimant immediately reported to said naval governor. Said naval governor, by a verbal order, directed the claimant to duty in the town of Agaña, Guam, looking out for the health and sanitary condition of tbe natives. This was all the duty which the claimant performed during the period covered by this claim. He was only on the Brutus once or twice during this period, and then only for a social visit. No report by the claimant was made to the Navy Department of his shore service, nor was any order issued assigning him to shore duty until March 26, 1901, when such order was made by the governor-general of the island.
III. There were no public quarters available for occupancy by officers of the navy at Guam during the time covered by this claim. For this reason the claimant hired a house in the town of Agaña, the rent for which he paid himself. Fie messed for a time in the house and afterwards at a club. Fie received no quarters or any rent or commutation for quarters during the period claimed.
By regulation then in force he would be entitled to two rooms of the commuted value of $12 per room per month.
IV. The claimant has received pay during the period covered by this claim at the rate of $1,700 a year, being mounted pay with one increase for constructive service. If he is entitled to be paid as on shore duty beyond seas while on service at Guam, as aforesaid, he would be entitled to an increase of 10 per cent, amounting to $170 a year; also to commutation of quarters at the rate of $24 a month. The difference would be as follows:
$170 a year from November 16, 1900, to March 26, 1901, four months and eleven days-$64. 04
Commutation of quarters for same period, at $24 a month_104. 80
Total_168.84
Mr. George A. King for the claimant. Messrs. George A. and William B. King were on the brief.
Mr. Frederick De C. Faust (with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney-General John Q. Thompson) for the defendants.

Opinion:
Atkinson, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court:
The plaintiff in this suit is an assistant surgeon in the navy who files a claim against the United States for 10 per cent increase of pay for shore duty beyond seas and commutation for quarters from November 16, 1900, to March 16, 1901, inclusive, a period of four months and eleven days, amounting to $168.84.
Plaintiff was attached to the U. S. S. Tosemite at the time she ivas wrecked in a hurricane off the coast of the island of Guam November 16,1900, and- was thereafter assigned by the naval commander of the Asiatic Station to duty on board the government steamer Brutus. He reported as ordered to the naval governor of Guam November 30 and was by him verbally directed to perform shore duty at Agaña, Guam, to look after the health and sanitary condition of the natives.
His claim is based upon the following provisions of law: Sections 1261 and 1262 of the Revised Statutes, and section 13 of the navy personnel act (30 Stats., 1007) which reads:
" That after June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine. commissioned officers of the line of the Navy and of the Medical and Pay Corps shall receive the same pay and allowances, except forage, as are or may be provided by or in pursuance of laAv for the officers of corresponding rank in the army: Provided, That such officers when on shore shall receive the allowances, but fifteen per centum less pay than when on sea duty; but this provision shall not apply to warrant officers commissioned under section twelve of this act: Provided further, That when naval officers are detailed for shore duty beyond seas they shall receive the same pay and allowances as are or may be provided by or in pursuance of law for officers of the army detailed for duty in similar places."
The naval appropriation act of March 3, 1901 (31 Stats., 1108) provides:
" That officers of the navy, and officers and enlisted men of the Marine Corps, who have been detailed, or may hereafter be detailed, for shore duty in Alaska, the Philippine Islands, Guam, or elsewhere beyond the continental limits of the United States, shall be considered as having been detailed for ' shore duty beyond seas,' and shall receive pay accordingly, with such additional pay as may be provided by law for service in island possessions of the United States."
That these acts include the plaintiff as a naval assistant surgeon is not controverted, but nevertheless the defendants contend that plaintiff having been detached from duty on the Yosemite and ordered to report to the naval governor of the island of Guam for duty on the U. S. S. Brutus, he therefore is not entitled to shore pay and commutation for quarters, notwithstanding that it is shown the duties which he performed on shore were by direction of the naval governor. But inasmuch as his official assignment -was to sea duty on board the steamer Brutus, he is not entitled to shore pay on the verbal assignment to shore duty. In other words, the claimant was " not detailed for shore duty beyond seas " within the meaning of the proviso above quoted; nor does it appear that in addition to his duty on board the Brutus he was assigned to shore duty. Inasmuch as he was assigned to duty on board the Brutus no right of action can be founded on the mere verbal direction of the naval governor to the plaintiff that he come on shore. Such duties as were performed on shore by the plaintiff before official action of the naval governor ordering the plaintiff ashore must be consid ered as temporary service on the part of the plaintiff from the Brutus where he was ordered to be and to remain until a subsequent official direction to leave the ship.
The service of a naval officer on shore duty beyond the seas is exceptional, and to entitle such officer to extra pay therefor he must show that he was detailed for such service.
For the reasons given the petition is dismissed.