Williams v. United States
Williams v. United States
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court:
From the findings of fact 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 new regiment. Consequently, Avhen 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 J anuary 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.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- John G. Williams, administrator, &c. v. United States
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- On the claimants Appeal. A surgeon’s mate in the Continental Army, on the consolidation of the Virginia regi-mentsin 1778, is reduced and becomes a supernumerary officer. While continuing ' tole a supernumerary, he accepts the position of surgeon’s mate in a regiment authorieed in 1779, and subsequently is promoted tobe surgeon. This regiment does not “ continue in the service to the end of the war ”; consequently, its officers are not entitled to the half-pay for life assured to those u>ho should thus continue in the service. After their diseharge, its officers ivere not considered as supernumeraries. The court below holds: (1) That supernumerary officers of the Continental Army were entitled to half-pay for life under the Resolution 21 st October, 1780 (Jour. Cong., vol. iii, 538); but that resolution was not intended to be cumulative to the Resolution 9th January, 1779 (Jour. Cong., vol. iii, 179), which directs that the officers to be app>oiuted to a certain battalion bo taken from the supernumeraries; it applied only to those officers who continued to be supernumeraries to the end of the war; (2) That if a supernumerary officer in the Continental Army subsequently accepted a commission in another regiment, he lost the character of supernumerary and all right to tho half-pay for life assured to supernumeraries by the Continental Congress. Judgment for the defendants. The claimant appeals. The judgment of the court below is affirmed upon precisely the same grounds.