Williams v. United States
154 U.S. 648 (1879)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Williams v. United States, 154 U.S. 648 (1879)

Williams v. United States

No. 1058

Submitted January 24, 1879

Decided February 3, 1879

154 U.S. 648

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS

Syllabus

The acceptance by a supernumerary officer in the Continental line of an appointment in the regiment of guards authorized by the State of Virginia took him out of the line and put him into the new organization.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

From the finding of facts sent up with this appeal we are clearly of the opinion that Dr. Taylor did not "continue in service until the end of the war" within the meaning of the resolutions of Congress of October 21, 1780, and of March 22, 1783, under which the claim in this case is made. When he accepted his appointment in the regiment of guards, January 9, 1779, he ceased to be a supernumerary surgeon's mate, and became an active officer in the

Page 154 U. S. 649

new regiment. Consequently, when that regiment was discharged because its term of enlistment had expired, he was out of service. When the new regiment was raised, the Governor and Council of Virginia were authorized by Congress to appoint its officers out of those in the Virginia line who were then supernumerary. Although it is said, in one of the additional findings, that Dr. Taylor was "assigned to active duty," this is to be construed in connection with the resolution to which reference is made, and that being done, it is apparent there was no intention by that language to modify the previous finding that

"he was appointed surgeon's mate of the regiment of guards authorized by the resolution of January 9, 1779, of the Continental Congress."

By the resolution, Congress permitted the supernumerary officers in the line to accept appointments in the new regiment. Such an acceptance took them out of their former position in the line, and put them into the new organization.

The judgment of the Court of Claims is affirmed.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.