Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/261/321/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/261/321/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
United States v. Moran, 261 U.S. 321 (1923)
United States v. Moran
No. 231
Argued March 1, 1923
Decided March 12, 1923
261 U.S. 321
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS
Syllabus
Decided on the authority of United States v. Allen, ante, 261 U. S. 317.
56 Ct.Clms. 492, affirmed.
Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims awarding a sum as additional pay to a master-at-arms in the Coast Guard.
MR. JUSTICE McKENNA delivered the opinion of the Court.
Action for $600. Judgment for $260.50. The case was submitted with United States v. Allen, ante, 261 U. S. 317, depends upon the same statute, and presents the question of the claim of a master at arms in the Coast Guard to receive pay at the rate allowed by the statute to a chief master at arms in the Navy, less all pay previously received in the lower grade.
Moran enlisted in the United States Revenue Cutter Service, the name of which has since been changed to the United States Coast Guard, as an ordinary seaman, and attained the rank of master at arms, the duties of which corresponded in all respects to the duties of chief master at arms in the Navy.
Moran therefore, since April 6, 1917, has been, and is, entitled to receive a rate of pay corresponding to that of a chief master at arms in the Navy. Had he been so paid, and as required by the Act of May 22, 1917, 40 Stat. 84, he would have received during the entire period from August 1, 1917, when he was placed on active duty, to December 31, 1918, the sum of $1,790.50. The pay received by him, however, was $1,530, leaving a balance due of $260.50. For this sum the Court of Claims gave judgment.
The findings of the court sustain its action, and on the authority of the Allen case, we affirm the judgment.
Affirmed.
